51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that the application insofar as it related to a 26 September 2019 email was not receivable ratione materiae because that decision was not final. It did not produce a direct legal impact on the Applicant¡¯s legal status or have a legal effect on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The applicable legal decision was a Circular dated 18 October 2019. That Circular confirmed to the Applicant that he had not been selected for any of the posts he had applied for in 2019. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable in relation to three decisions contested by the...

The Administration¡¯s decision to redeploy the Applicant to Nairobi was subject to the condition that he be medically cleared. This condition has not been met to date, and consequently, the decision has not been implemented. Therefore, none of the challenged administrative decisions have yielded any direct legal consequences in the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment, which remain unchanged. The applications are therefore non-receivable ratione materiae. The Applicant appealed this administrative decision before the Tribunal before MEU¡¯s deadline to respond to his request for management evaluation...

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had filed the application without awaiting a response to his request for management evaluation. In view of this, the Tribunal found the application not receivable and dismissed it.

The email identified by the Applicant as the contested administrative decision does not constitute a fresh decision but a mere restatement of a previous email. It therefore cannot be considered to produce consequences on the legal order and is therefore not a challengeable administrative decision. The Applicant failed to contest the assignment of her current functions when notified to her. Therefore, the Applicant would be barred from contesting at this point that such assignment was in non-compliance with her contractual rights or conditions of employment.

The impugned decision did not produce any direct legal consequence on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or his contract of employment since he had an FTA which did not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of length of service. The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s assertion that he had a legitimate expectation of a two-year contract renewal as was usually the case ran counter to the clear and consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that the renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts did not, in and of itself...

The impugned decision did not produce any direct legal consequence on the Applicant¡¯s terms of appointment or his contract of employment since he had an FTA which did not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of length of service. The Tribunal held that the Applicant¡¯s assertion that he had a legitimate expectation of a two-year contract renewal as was usually the case ran counter to the clear and consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that the renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts did not, in and of itself...

The Tribunal found that whereas UNSOS had called upon the Applicant 51ÁÔÆæ the court order under the sanction of deductions, in fact, there were no deductions decided or effected. UNSOS¡¯s actions were only prefatory. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the application was not receivable for want of a reviewable administrative decision. The application was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the decision to abolish the post of Senior Child Protection Officer in Darfur, Sudan is not subject to judicial review. That aspect of the application was non-receivable ratione materiae. The Tribunal found that the Administration did not act unlawfully by not renewing the Applicant¡¯s contract because the contract itself was clear that it was expiring on 31 December 2018. Fixed-term contracts carry no expectation of renewal.

The authority to grant an SPA, which, at Annex IV to ST/SGB/2019/2, is delegated to Heads of entity (D-1 and below) and which the Officer in Charge exercised in handling the SPA request is different from the authority to grant an ex gratia payment. The Applicant did not provide any evidence to prove that the authority to award an ex gratia payment was at any point delegated from the USG/DMSPC. In the absence of evidence of express transmission of authority the Tribunal was not satisfied with the Applicant¡¯s assertion that the Acting Director of the Administrative Services Division had...

The authority to grant an SPA, which, at Annex IV to ST/SGB/2019/2, is delegated to Heads of entity (D-1 and below) and which the Officer in Charge exercised in handling the SPA request is different from the authority to grant an ex gratia payment. The Applicant did not provide any evidence to prove that the authority to award an ex gratia payment was at any point delegated from the USG/DMSPC. In the absence of evidence of express transmission of authority, the Tribunal was not satisfied with the Applicant¡¯s assertion that the Acting Director of the Admiistrative Services Division had...