神马午夜福利网

UNDT/2025/045

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal held:

a. Some of the contested decisions were manifestly irreceivable as already determined by the Tribunal in Likukela Order No. 161 (NBI/2024) and Likukela UNDT/2025/006. These matters would not be considered again by the Tribunal in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata.

b. The claims regarding the alleged theft of the Applicant's wages, lack of a legal basis for recovery of her final pay and illegally withholding her final pay were not receivable ratione materiae for failure to file a timely request for management evaluation.

c. The claim alleging prevention of the payment of the Applicant's pension was not receivable because it is moot.

d. The remainder of the Applicant’s claims were not receivable as they were beyond the competence of the Dispute Tribunal.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed an application on 11 May 2025 contesting several administrative decisions which she described as follows:

a. Theft of her wages in the sum of USD47,224.62 which was paid to the United Nations Federal Credit Union (“UNFCU”);

b. Prevention of payment of her United Nations Pension in the sum of USD223,725.00;

c. Lack of a legal basis for the recovery of her final pay and concealment of the act, until queried;

d. Illegally withholding of her final pay as a violation of human dignity,

e. Risking her USD45,000 worth of belongings in Kinshasa, to tear, wear, loss and theft; and accumulation of storage charges;

f. Criminal trespass on her house in Lusaka, Zambia on 23 February 2024, and vandalism and looting of all her belongings and evidence in the illegal civil suits inflicted on her; and

g. Validation of an “illegally obtained Res Judicata, 13 July 2022 Zambian Judgment in cause 2014/HPC/0057; and delegitimization of the legitimate and binding mandatory and Final Default Judgment, [she] won in the sum of USD110 million against UNFCU and Zambia, without jurisdiction”.

Legal Principle(s)

In accordance with art. 8.3 of the UNDT statute, “[t]he Dispute Tribunal shall not suspend or waive the
deadlines for management evaluation."

The Dispute Tribunal has no authority to waive immunities or to refer a matter to the General Assembly and
the Security Council for a legal advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice.

Outcome

Dismissed as not receivable

Le Bureau de l'Administration de la Justice (BAJ) a préparé ce résumé de la jurisprudence a titre informatif seulement. Il ne s'agit pas d'un document officiel et il ne faut pas s'y fier comme une interprétation faisant autorité des décisions des Tribunaux. Pour les textes faisant autorité des décisions, veuillez-vous référer au jugement ou à l'ordonnance rendue par le Tribunal respectif. Les Tribunaux sont les seuls organes compétents pour interpréter leurs jugements respectifs, conformément à l'article 12(3) du Statut du Tribunal du Contentieux Administratif des Nations Unies (TCANU) et à l'article 11(3) du Statut du Tribunal d'Appel des Nations Unies (TANU). Toute inexactitude dans cette publication relève seulement la responsabilité du BAJ, qui doit être contacté directement pour toute demande de correction. Pour faire part de vos commentaires, n’hésitez pas à communiquer avec BAJ à oaj@un.org

Les résumés des jugements étaient généralement préparés en anglais. Ils ont été traduits en Fran?ais et sont en cours d'examen pour en vérifier l'exactitude.

Applicants/Appellants
Dorah Likukela
贰苍迟颈迟é
Numéros d'Affaires
Tribunal
Lieu du Greffe
Date of Judgement
Duty Judge
Language of Judgment
Type de Décision
颁补迟é驳辞谤颈别蝉/厂辞耻蝉-肠补迟é驳辞谤颈别蝉