¹ú²úAV

UNAT considered an application for execution. UNAT noted that Ms Simmons maintained that there was a sum of money due and owed to her relating to judgment No. 2012-UNAT-221. UNAT held that Ms Simmons’ contentions were not sustained. UNAT held that the Secretary-General fully complied with judgment No. 2012-UNAT-221, as corrected by Order No. 148 (2013). UNAT rejected the application for execution.

UNAT considered two applications, one for correction and one for revision, relating to judgment No. 2013-UNAT-363. UNAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to show any clerical or arithmetical mistake to justify the correction of the judgment. UNAT held that Mr Chaaban failed to identify any decisive fact unknown at the time of the judgment to warrant its revision. UNAT dismissed both applications.

UNAT considered Mr Karseboom’s application for interpretation of judgment regarding UNAT’s judgment delivered on 30 October 2015, with respect to: (i) whether moral damages awarded by the UNDT were still payable; and (ii) whether the Appeals Tribunal required a medical board to be convened. UNAT found that Mr Karseboom failed to identify any sentences or words in the judgment that were unclear or ambiguous. UNAT accordingly dismissed the application for interpretation of judgment.

UNAT rejected the request for an oral hearing, finding it would not assist in the expeditious and fair disposal of the case according to Article 18. 1 of the UNDT RoP. UNAT noted that the judgment on revision being appealed was issued more than four years ago. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. On the merits, UNAT held that UNDT had correctly dismissed the application for revision since no material elements according to UNAT RoP could be shown to support the application, such as a new fact which, at the time the judgment was rendered, was unknown to UNAT and the moving party. UNAT...

UNAT held that the motion did not fulfil the requirements of Article 11 of the UNAT Statute, which provides that a revision must be based on the discovery of a decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to UNAT and to the party applying for revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. The Applicants were relying on Article 31. 1 of the RoP and not on Article 11 of the UNAT Statute. UNAT held that a rule could not supplant a statutory provision such as Article 11 and that Article 31. 1 only applied where there is no other expressly...

UNAT found that the execution of the UNDT judgment No. UNDT/2014/007 had been suspended following the filing of the Secretary-General’s appeal to UNAT. UNAT held that the UNDT judgment had become duly executable upon the issuing to the parties of judgment No. 2015-UNAT-516 wherein UNAT dismissed the Secretary-General’s appeal against UNDT judgment. UNAT held that the staff member’s motion seeking execution was properly filed before UNAT. UNAT held that the request for execution had been rendered moot by the event that the payment was issued on 22 July 2015. UNAT considered that the only...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2017-UNAT-737 filed by Ms Likukela. As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied her motion to supply additional filings. UNAT held that Ms Likukela presented no new and/or decisive fact which at the time the judgment was rendered was unknown within the meaning of Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute. UNAT dismissed the application for revision and affirmed the UNAT judgment.

UNAT considered the appeal of the Secretary-General. UNAT held that the paragraphs of the UNDT judgment in question were in a plain, unambiguous language that left no reasonable doubt as to their meaning and that they required no interpretation. UNAT held that UNDT erred in law in holding that the application for interpretation was receivable. UNAT held that UNDT should have dealt with the claim for interest in its judgment, but it omitted to do so. UNAT held that UNDT exceeded its competence by wrongly applying Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute to alter the substance of its final ruling by...

UNAT considered Mr Onifade’s application for revision of judgment No. 2016-UNAT-668. UNAT held that there was no evidence before it to support the application. UNAT held that Mr Onifade had failed to show that the first MOP form was unknown to him at the time the judgment was rendered and he had presented no decisive fact which was, at the time the judgment was rendered, unknown to him and UNAT. UNAT held that the application did not meet the criteria established under Article 11(1) of the UNAT Statute and Article 24 of the UNAT RoP. UNAT held that the application had no merit and dismissed it...

UNAT considered an application for revision of judgment No. 2016-UNAT-667. Noting that there was no provision under its Rules of Procedure allowing for the submission of additional pleadings after the submission of comments to an application for revision of judgment and that no exceptional circumstances existed, UNAT dismissed Mr Awe’s motion to file additional comments. UNAT considered Mr Awe’s claim to have discovered new facts in the form of a report of the fact-finding panel which considered his complaints of abuse of authority and harassment which allegedly showed, in sum, the improper...