UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The Appeals Tribunal found that the UNDT correctly concluded that the Administration’s stated reason for the non-renewal was supported by the facts, i.e. the expiration of a grant that funded Mr. Musambai's appointment. Furthermore, the UNDT correctly held that, once the Administration substantiated the reason it gave for the exercise of its discretion, the burden shifted to Mr. Musambai to demonstrate that the decision was unreasonable, unfair, procedurally irregular, or tainted by improper motive.
Turning to Mr. Musambai’s argument that other staff members continued receiving salaries notwithstanding the expiry of grants and that his duties were carried out after his separation, the Appeals Tribunal noted that the UNDT examined this argument and concluded that Mr. Musambai had failed to show that the Administration’s exercise of its discretion was unlawful. The Administration explained that Mr. Musambai’s functions were absorbed by staff members occupying higher-level positions and that assigning those functions to Mr. Musambai would have required competitive selection and corresponding remuneration. The Appeals Tribunal concluded that Mr. Musambai had not demonstrated that this explanation lacked factual foundation or that the UNDT acted unreasonably in accepting it.
Finally, the Appeals Tribunal was unpersuaded by Mr. Musambai’s assertion that the non-renewal decision was influenced by a pending investigation into allegations of misconduct made against him. The UNDT expressly considered his contentions and did not err in finding that he had not established improper motive.
The Appeals Tribunal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
By Judgment No. UNDT/2025/106, the UNDT dismissed Mr. Musambai's application. The UNDT found that the Administration’s stated reason for the non-renewal of Mr. Musambai's appointment, i.e. lack of funding, was supported by the facts and that Mr. Musambai had not established any unlawfulness in the exercise of the Administration's discretion.
Mr. Musambai appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
A decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment is a discretionary decision which, like any other exercise of discretion by the Secretary-General, must be reached fairly and not in an arbitrary manner.
The decision not to renew a fixed-term contract may be challenged where the Administration has not acted fairly, justly or transparently or where the decision was motivated by bias, prejudice or improper motive. The staff member has the burden of proving that such factors played a role in the administrative decision. The UNDT’s role is not to determine whether another administrative outcome would have been preferable but whether the contested decision was legal, rational, procedurally correct and proportionate.
Once the Administration has provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the stated basis for its action, the evidentiary burden shifts to the staff member to demonstrate the unlawfulness of such action.
The Administration possesses discretion to organise its operations, determine staffing needs and allocate available resources. That discretion is not absolute and remains subject to review for arbitrariness, procedural unfairness, bad faith and improper purpose. However, judicial review does not extend to replacing administrative decisions with judicial preferences as to which staff member ought to have remained employed.