UNDT/2023/080

UNDT/2023/080, Mushumba

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

Having received the notification of the disciplinary measure on 20 March 2023, the Applicant should have filed his application at the latest by 19 June 2023. The evidence on record shows, however, that the Applicant only filed his application on 21 June 2023.

In his submission dated 17 July 2023, the Applicant recognized his lateness and asked the Tribunal to exceptionally receive his application for several reasons. These reasons are not supported by evidence, and the Applicant did not explain how the alleged challenges impacted his ability to timely file his application.

While there are circumstances where a request for a waiver may exceptionally be filed after the time limit has run out, they must show that the Applicant was not able to file such request beforehand, like a technical failing of the Court Case Management System or a medical incapacity.

However, the “challenging” context that the Applicant described is unsupported by evidence, and he also never requested an extension of time to file his application or a waiver of the statutory time-limit.

Indeed, the Applicant only raised the alleged challenges in filing the application when faced with the Respondent’s request to have it dismissed on receivability grounds, and his allegations also do not meet the standard of exceptional circumstances.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contests the decision of the High Commissioner to impose on him the disciplinary measure of separation from service, with compensation in lieu of notice, and without termination indemnity, for having engaged in sexual harassment and conduct unbecoming of an international civil servant.

Legal Principle(s)

Time limits are to be strictly enforced for filing applications and appeals, and lateness even by several minutes, several hours, or several days is irrelevant. Requests for extensions of time or to waive the statutory time limit to file an application may be considered if exceptional circumstances justify it. The Appeals Tribunal has defined them as circumstances beyond the Applicant’s control preventing him or her from timely exercising the right to appeal.

Outcome

Dismissed as not receivable

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Mushumba

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :