¹ú²úAV

The Tribunal found that the Applicant had discharged the burden of proof in showing that her separation from the Organization was motivated by extraneous factors and improper motives. Extraneous factors – There was increased animosity between the Applicant and her various supervisors both in Bor and later when she was transferred to Wau. Consequently, the Tribunal found that bias against the Applicant existed on the part of UNMISS management. Due Process/ Procedural flaw – The responsible officials at the mission all defied the procedures provided for by ST/AI/371 for dealing with reports of misconduct. The highly irregular alternative comparative review process used in abolishing the Applicant’s post was not simply a procedural error. Coupled with Civil Affairs Division’s (CAD) apparent unwillingness to grant her a lateral transfer there is no doubt of a strong resolve and desire to separate the Applicant from the Organization.The issuance of a vacancy announcement for the post the Applicant encumbered was more than a simple clerical error as presented by the Respondent and evidenced a desire on the part of CAD and UNMISS managers for the Applicant to leave the Organization. Burden of proof - The burden of proof lies with the Applicant contesting the administrative decision.The Applicant manifestly discharged this burden. It is clear from the manner in which her claim of sexual assault was handled as well as other evidence led that there was no love lost between the Applicant and her supervisors as well as a general disdain for her serious grievances.