UNDT/2019/132, Wanjala
The decision communicated to the Applicant on 29 March 2019 presents essentially the relief sought by the Applicant in his application dated 4 March 2019 and while the Applicant is still insisting on clarification from the Regional Service Centre in Entebbe (RSCE) as to the basis for the impugned decision, this neither minimizes nor negates the fact that the administration acceded to his request and rescinded the impugned decision altogether. The Applicant has not tendered any particulars or evidence to support, prove and/or explain his allegations of harassment, abuse of authority and mental stress and agony. In any event, the Tribunal finds that the disputed matter was contractual in nature, the breach was unintentional, resulting from an error in interpreting rules rather than from negligence, and short-lasting, as the Respondent corrected himself within three months. The magnitude of financial or other inconvenience caused to the Applicant must not have been great given that he voluntarily withdrew from the move to MONUSCO. As such, the facts do not form the basis for moral damages.
The decision to “[discontinue the Applicant’s] onboarding process after being selected for a post with MONUSCO and condemnation never to serve or compete for any position with MONUSCO”.
The mootness doctrine as per Kallon. In cases where the Administration rescinds the contested decision during the proceedings, the applicant’s allegations may be moot unless the applicant can prove that he or she still sustains an injury for which the Tribunal can award relief. An application is moot insofar as either the matter is resolved in a manner consistent with the thrust of the application, e.g., the Administration withdrew from the decision or the claim was otherwise satisfied to the effect there is no gravamen on the part of the applicant, or the claim cannot be satisfied for objective reasons. However, the question needs to be analyzed in relation to the nature and extent of the claim. The application certainly does not automatically become moot in relation to a claim for compensation. For a breach or infringement to give rise to moral damages, especially in a contractual setting, where normally a pecuniary satisfaction for a patrimonial injury is regarded as sufficient to compensate a complainant for actual loss as well as the vexation or inconvenience caused by the breach, then, either the contract or the infringing conduct must be attended by peculiar features, or must occur in a context of peculiar circumstances.