����AV

Pleadings - A defence to a claim must say which of the allegations in the particulars of claim are admitted, which are denied and which allegations the defendant is unable to admit or deny, but requires the claimant to prove. Every allegation made in a claim should be dealt with in the defence. Where an allegation is denied, this normally implies that the defendant intends to put up a positive case to the contrary. Where the defendant denies an allegation, he must state his reasons for doing so; and if heintends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the claimant, he must state his own version.In this case, except for a very general traverse at paragraph 46 of his Reply, the Respondent has neither answered to the allegations of fact pleaded by the Applicant nor addressed the documentary evidence adduced in support of the said facts. He has merely stated: “the Respondent denies all the allegations made by the Applicant.” The Respondent’s failure to deal with the particular allegations of the Applicant leaves the Tribunal with no other course of action than to accept the Applicant’s version of the events.

Delegated Authority - The termination decision was taken without the requisite delegated authority notwithstanding the fact that all posts within UNMIS were necessarily to be abolished as a result of Security Council Resolution 1997 (2011).

Due Process - Contrary to the Respondent’s submission that the CRP conducted its evaluation against a set of review criteria set out in information circulars and according to an objective methodology developed by the Panel at its plenary; the comparative review process was not only flawed but evidently shamefully manipulated in relation, at least, to its review of the Applicant.

Harassment and abuse of authority - Based on pleadings, ample oral and documentary evidence and the fact that these claims are unchallenged, at all times material to this Application, there existed a very poor working relationship between the Applicant and the Chief of Radio. The Applicant was undermined and harassed by her and FH senior and junior staff in several ways as to render the UNMIS radio workplace unbearable, hostile and intimidating for him.

Accountability - The Tribunal finds and concludes that it is more likely than not, on a balance of probabilities, that as a result of the disagreement with the Applicant about the relationship between the UNMIS radio station, Radio Miraya and FH, the Chief of Staff and the Chief of the Public Information Office were in a position to negatively influence the outcome of the comparative review process against the Applicant and did in fact do so. The disagreement between the Applicant and the Chief of Staff over the reporting relationship between UNMIS and FH created animus on the part of the Chief of Staff which led him to put pressure on the Chief of the Public Information Office through the Chief of Radio to negatively influence the outcome of the CRP process.

The Tribunal orders rescission of the administrative decision to separate the Applicant from service and orders the Respondent to reinstate the Applicant. The Applicant is entitled to compensation for the substantive and procedural irregularities occasioned him by the failure by the Administration to follow its own guidelines, rules and procedures. The case is referred to the Secretary-General under art. 10.8 of the Statute of the Tribunal.

Accountability referral: the Tribunal referred to the Scretary-General, pursuant to art. 10.8 of its Statute, Mr. David Wimhurst and Ms. Sylvia Fletcher, for the purpose of considering what action should be taken in respect of their conduct, specifically, Mr. Wimhurst for using Ms. Herman and Ms. Jiang to influence the comparative review process to the detriment of the Applicant and Ms. Fletcher for her lack of integrity in manipulating the CRP process to the detriment of the Applicant.