神马午夜福利网

Nairobi

Showing 1 - 10 of 1022
UNDT/2025/089, Assamis Compaore

The Victim clearly had a motive not to tell the truth before the Tribunal. And she had an interest in the outcome of this case since continued payments fromthe Applicant depended on his continued employment with the United Nations in Congo. She even agreed that she was concerned about how she would survivewithout financial support from the Applicant. For all these reasons, the Tribunal did not find her testimony in court to be credible and relied instead on the statements she made before the Applicant’s payments. A similar analysis applied to the Applicant’s testimony. He too had an obvious...

UNDT/2025/054, Kebede

The Tribunal rescinded the decision not to select the Applicant for Job Opening # 214053 due to unlawful bias, with an alternative to pay Applicant two years of the difference in pay between his current position and the would have been new post, had he been selected in the challenged process.

Persuant toArticle 10.8 of the Dispute Tribunal Statute the Respondent’s counsel is referred to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for possible action to enforce accountability for his false statement and related misconduct in these proceedings, and to his national bar authority for such...

010 (NBI/2024), Nelson Mutsoli
  • Appealed

The Court held that the application was not admissible because none of the elements that justified a stay of action were present. The Court held that the administrative measure was moot and inadmissible because the contested administrative measure had been explained and an additional step had been taken to eliminate any possibility of prejudice to the appeal.

046 (NBI/2024), Bubega
  • Appealed
1. The decision by MONUSCO Human Resources to withhold the P.35 form was unlawful because the authority to withold said form is is expressly delegated solely to the USG/DMSPC. 2. The Administration failed to act swiftly in this matter. 3. The application floundered on the requirement of irreparable damage. Mere economic loss only is not enough to satisfy the requirement of irreparable damage. 4. The consequential damages that the Applicant claimed as a result of the economic loss (his alleged inability to pay for food, housing and education) are all damages that could be recovered should the...
020 (NBI/2024), Harjit Dhindsa
  • Appealed
In this case, the Management Advice and Evaluation Section had already issued a response to the Applicant’s 22 December 2023 request for management evaluation. There was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. In view of the foregoing, the application for suspension of action pending management evaluation was dismissed as not receivable.
014 (NBI/2024), Jayne Kimani
  • Appealed
In this case, the Management Evaluation Unit had already determined that the Applicant’s request for a management evaluation was time-barred and was therefore not receivable. As there was no management evaluation pending and, consequently, one of the mandatory requirements for the examination of applications for suspension of action was not met. Additionally, pursuant to art. 8.3 of its Statute, the Dispute Tribunal shall not suspend or waive the deadlines for management evaluation.
007 (NBI/2024), Jean-Joseph Henry
  • Appealed
1. The Tribunal noted that in sec. VI of his application form, the Applicant declared that he did not request management evaluation. Indeed, he did not file a copy of his management evaluation request with his application. The record showed that the Applicant was yet to request management evaluation of the decision he sought to have suspended. 2. The Tribunal recalled that applications filed pursuant to arts. 2.2 of the UNDT Statute and 13.1 of the Rules of Procedure must be predicated on a pending management evaluation. Consequently, since the Applicant had not requested...
002 (NBI/2024), Francis Fultang
  • Appealed
1. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had previously raised the same issue before both the Dispute Tribunal (Fultang UNDT/2022/102) and the Appeals Tribunal (Fultang UNAT-2023-1403). The Dispute Tribunal had found the documents in question admissible. The Appeals Tribunal affirmed this finding. 2. The Tribunal, therefore, held that since the issue had been fully litigated by the parties previously, it was subject to the doctrine of res judicata. Thus, the subject documents were deemed admissible in the proceedings. 3. The Tribunal further concluded that even if...
022 (NBI/2025), Cynthia Cline
  • Appealed
The Tribunal agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant must comply with the requirements for filing an application set forth in paras. 5, 6, 22 and 23 of Practice Direction No. 4 with respect to the number of pages and content of Annexes in an application form. The Applicant failed to comply with these provisions. Specifically, the Applicant filed, as an annex, 10 pages of arguments and facts beyond those set forth in the application form. The Applicant was directed to file an amended application which was in compliance with paras. 5, 6, 22 and 23 of Practice Direction No. 4.
017 (NBI/2025), Tarek Abdou
  • Appealed
Having filed a motion requesting an extension of time to file an application with a fast-approaching deadline, Counsel should have monitored the case file for a ruling but failed to do so. Considering the amount of time Counsel spent drafting and filing motions for extension of time, he could have filed an application instead. This resulted in more resources being expended by the Applicant’s Counsel and by the Tribunal in dealing with the motions. However, the Applicant should not suffer prejudice because of his Counsel’s neglect.