2020-UNAT-979, Igunda
UNAT considered an appeal of Order No. 079. UNAT held that, regardless of whether UNDT may have committed an error of law, fact, or procedure, Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute precluded an appeal to UNAT if UNDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT held that UNDT acted within its jurisdiction or competence. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Order.
The Applicant contested the decision not to renew his fixed-term appointment beyond its expiration as a result of a retrenchment exercise and submitted an application for suspension of action. In Order No. 079 (NBI/2019), the UNDT declined to suspend the administrative decision on grounds that the impugned administrative decision was not prima facie unlawful.
Appeals of UNDT decisions on suspensions of action are only receivable before UNAT if UNDT, in the adjudication of such applications, clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence.