51³Ô¹Ï

The UNAT considered whether the interlocutory appeal was receivable because ABA had not been given an opportunity to be heard on the issue of the protective measures for V01 at the proposed hearing at the time the UNDT issued the first Order. The UNAT held that this was not grounds to grant the interlocutory appeal, because ABA’s arguments were heard by the UNDT when he filed his motion for reconsideration.

The UNAT held that the UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction when it issued these case management orders. The UNAT was also not persuaded by ABA’s argument that the violation...

The UNAT held that, since Mr. Nigam based his interlocutory appeal on alleged errors of fact and law by the UNDT Judge President, with no allegation of the UNDT acting extra-jurisdictionally or similarly in excess of its jurisdiction, he must wait to exercise his right of appeal until a final decision has been made.

The UNAT concluded that an earlier UNDT Judgment contained neither any indication of bias by Judge Belle against Mr. Nigam, nor any criticism beyond what a reasonably informed observer might expect from a partly erroneous judgment and its subsequent appellate review.

The UNAT...

The UNAT noted that the Dispute Tribunal had issued the impugned Order granting the request to extend the time limit for filing the application without the adversely-affected party being heard and without authority to do so. The UNAT found that the UNDT had not technically complied with its own Practice Direction in issuing the Order and may have strictly violated the principles of natural justice and due process by failing to give the Secretary-General adequate notice of the motion and an opportunity to reply.

The UNAT observed, however, that the UNDT had accepted the staff member’s averment...

The UNAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. UNDT/2022/124 and that the UNDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal. The UNAT nevertheless observed that the UNDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022). Despite this, the UNAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case. With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the UNAT held that the UNDT rightfully refused to...

The UNAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable on grounds that the UNDT had not clearly exceeded its competence or jurisdiction or assumed a jurisdiction it did not have when it consolidated Mr. Toson's cases. The UNAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that Mr. Toson had advanced similar unsuccessful arguments in an earlier UNAT case that he brought, but Mr. Toson refused to be guided by that judgment prior to pursuing the present appeal. The UNAT put Mr. Toson on notice that he risks incurring an award of costs for vexatious litigation if he persists in pursuing the same...

UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s interlocutory appeal against the UNDT order as not receivable, finding that UNDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. UNAT held that UNDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. UNAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.

UNAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the UNDT’s exercise of its jurisdictional powers, conferred on UNDT by its Statute, which enables cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously. UNAT held that the complaints made by the Secretary-General fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of UNDT, notwithstanding the alleged breach of procedural fairness. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against UNDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. UNDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute had been met. UNAT held that UNDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-UNAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...

UNAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that UNAT consider the appeal receivable and find that UNDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat’s appointment. UNAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, UNDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-UNAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. UNAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. UNAT rescinded...

UNAT held that Ms Mpacko’s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision and did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko’s application for suspension of action. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.