¹ú²úAV

Receivability - The arguments that this Application is not receivable were premised on the provisions of section 5 of ST/AI/1998/9 which is the legislation governing the policies and procedures for the classification and reclassification of posts. In the instant case, there was no attempt or effort made to reclassify the Applicant’s post. The Respondent’s preliminary objection that this Application is not receivable is therefore irrelevant and accordingly dismissed. Admissibility of evidence – In considering the Respondent’s prayer with regard to the admissibility of Annex 13, the Tribunal will consider the provisions of art. 18.1 of the ROP on the admissibility of evidence. The Respondent has not submitted that Annex 13 is irrelevant or frivolous. Although, he says the information contained in the document is confidential, he is not certain how it was obtained by the Applicant neither was he able to show that the document ought not to be exhibited to the Tribunal. The Tribunal notes that during the cross-examination of the Applicant, Respondent’s Counsel did not ask any questions to show that Annex 13 was not coming from proper custody. The document is properly before the Tribunal and the prayer to reject it is refused. Burden of proof - A basic principle of law is that a party who alleges a fact bears in principle the burden of proving its veracity. In the present case, the Applicant has failed to make out a proper case of unequal pay for equal work. Compensation for moral damage or injury - For an applicant to be entitled to moral damages, evidence must be produced of harm, stress or anxiety caused to the applicant which can be directly linked or reasonably attributed to a breach of his or her substantive or procedural rights and where the UNDT is satisfied that the stress, harm or anxiety is such as to merit a compensatory award. The Tribunal found that whilst there was unreasonable delay on the part of the mission in submitting the classification request in respect of the Applicant’s post, the circumstances of the case do not warrant the award of any compensation to the Applicant.