51³Ô¹Ï

UNAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General and a cross-appeal by Mr Kouadio. UNAT noted that at no point did Mr Kouadio request management evaluation of the contested decision and that UNDT is prohibited from considering any application brought to it more than three years after the issuance of the administrative decision that a potential applicant is seeking to challenge. UNAT held that the UNDT erred on a question of law in finding that it could not determine the receivability of the application. UNAT upheld the Secretary-General’s appeal, vacated the UNDT judgment and dismissed Mr...

UNAT refused the Appellant’s motion to file additional pleadings, noting that the Appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances which would justify UNAT exercising its discretion to allow him to file additional pleadings. UNAT held that UNDT did not err in deciding that, since the Appellant had waited more than five years to finally contest the administrative decision, his application was not receivable. UNAT held that the UNDT correctly found that, even if it was minded to consider the application, it was barred from doing so by Article 8(4) of the UNDT Statute which provided...

On the Appellants’ motion for contempt and request to strike specific paragraphs from the Respondent’s Answer, UNAT found no basis to grant the relief sought but stated it would deal with the issue in the judgment. On the Appellants’ complaints about the number of witnesses permitted to testify, UNAT held that: insofar as the Appellants’ sought to impugn the UNDT judgment on the basis of the number of witnesses permitted to testify, there was no merit in such an argument and it found no error of procedure such as to affect the decision in the case; and there was no merit in the argument that...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s appeal, in which she alleged that UNDT acted inappropriately in granting a summary judgment, that UNDT erred on a question of fact, resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision, and that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in awarding costs against her. UNAT held that it was entirely appropriate after the case management process had been concluded, for the UNDT to grant a summary judgment and that there was no legitimate inference that its decision to do so was influenced by any bias or prejudgment on the part of the Presiding Judge. UNAT also held...

UNAT held that the Appellant’s argument regarding the time limits was misconceived since UNDT had not declared the application non-receivable because the Appellant had failed to respect the time limits for filing an application, rather it declined jurisdiction on the basis that he had not sought timely management evaluation, i. e. , within the requisite sixty days of the contested decisions, as required by Staff Rule 11. 2(c). UNAT held that the exercise of determining the date of an implied administrative decision should be conducted by determining when the staff member knew or should...

UNAT upheld the UNDT ruling that the 2010 decisions were time-barred and not receivable ratione temporis. UNAT held that UNDT acted ultra vires or in excess of its competence and jurisdiction by considering whether the Appellant had shown exceptional circumstances justifying a waiver of the filing deadline, and thus held that the relevant paragraphs of the UNDT judgment were obiter dicta and should be stricken. UNAT held that UNDT erred in holding the Appellant’s motion or request for waiver of the deadline as not receivable ratione temporis on the basis that while it was not timely, that did...

UNAT considered the Appellant’s motion for leave to file additional pleadings and the appeal. UNAT noted that neither the UNAT Statute nor the UNAT RoP provide for an appellant to file an additional pleading after the respondent has filed an answer. UNAT also noted that Article 31(1) of the RoP and Section II. A. 3 of Practice Direction No. 1 of the Appeals Tribunal allow the Appeals Tribunal to grant a party’s motion to file additional pleadings only if there are exceptional circumstances justifying the motion. UNAT held that the Appellant did not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances...

UNAT held that exceptional circumstances existed which warranted an extension of time. UNAT held that UNDT’s discretion should have been exercised in the Appellant’s favour because it affected access to justice and there is a presumption that access to justice should not be denied at the outset without compelling reasons, which were absent. UNAT held that circumstances beyond the Appellant’s control prevented him from acting to file his appeal within the time limit and it would be unjust to visit upon the Appellant the consequences of an error (a fail in the electronic filing system) for which...

Noting that an appeal against an interlocutory order would only be receivable in instances when it is clear and manifest that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, UNAT actually rejected the Secretary-General’s appeal on the basis that it was moot. UNAT noted that UNDT had since disposed of the underlying case by Order No. 169; (NBI/2020) because the former staff never filed an application with the tribunal, even after being granted an extension.

On consideration of the totality of the applicant’s particular situation, the Dispute Tribunal held it was an exceptional case with exceptional reasons justifying an extension of time. An extension of time to file was granted.