UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore UNAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.
UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore UNAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.
UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore UNAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.
UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and therefore UNAT adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.
UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual difference nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al. ) and UNAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment at paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.
UNAT held that the Appellants had raised neither factual differences nor legal issues different from those canvassed in companion cases and disposed of in judgment No. 2017-UNAT-750 (Kagizi et al.). UNAT, therefore, adopted the reasoning from its prior judgment in paragraphs 18-27. UNAT dismissed the appeals and affirmed the UNDT judgments.
UNAT considered the appeal. UNAT held that the Appellant was estopped from challenging the lawfulness of the reassignment decision made in 2012 because his application to UNDT only challenged the decision to terminate his appointment in 2014. UNAT agreed with UNDT’s holding that there was no nexus between the reassignment and the abolition of the Appellant’s post. UNAT also agreed with UNDT’s finding that UNFPA fulfilled its duties towards the Appellant and had no obligation to place him on a new post. UNAT denied the Appellant’s request to overturn the impugned judgment on the sole ground of...
UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing and held that it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case, as required by Article 18(1) of the RoP. UNAT held that Toure is binding precedent on UNDT as it applied to the Appellant’s case and found no fault with UNDT’s judgment.
UNAT held that UNDT was correct in concluding that the Administration’s decision to terminate the staff member was unlawful since it did not fully comply with its obligations under Staff Rule 9. 6(e) and (f) to take all reasonable and bona fides efforts to consider her for available suitable posts, as an alternative to the abolished one. UNAT noted that the phrase “suitable posts” is not defined in the Staff Rules and that nothing in the language of Staff Rule 9. 6(e) and (f) indicates that the obligation of the Administration to consider the redundant staff member for suitable posts, vacant...
UNAT held that the appeal was defective for failure to identify errors made by UNRWA DT. However, noting that the Appellant was self-represented, UNAT considered whether UNRWA DT erred in finding that UNRWA had properly exercised its discretion in transferring the Appellant. UNAT held that UNRWA DT did not err in jurisdiction, procedure, law, or in fact in dismissing the Appellant’s application. UNAT upheld UNRWA DT’s finding that the Appellant did not meet the burden of proving that the decision to transfer him to another post after the abolition of his post was exercised arbitrarily or...
