The Applicant remains on special leave with full pay at the time of the judgment. The decision to terminate his appointment remains suspended and has no impact on his terms of appointment, the application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.
The Applicant was placed on special leave with full pay and not separated at the time of the judgment. Therefore, the appeal of the termination decision has not yet produced direct legal consequences to the Applicant’s terms of employment and is therefore note receivable. The Applicant did not submit the implied decision not to find him a suitable post for management evaluation, therefore this implied decision is not receivable. The Administration considered the Applicant for a post he applied for along with other candidates in violation of the obligation to consider his suitability on a...
The application is moot as the underlying contested decision in this case has been reversed.
Comments and communications of staff representatives do not have a direct impact on the terms of appointment or contract of employment of an individual staff member. There is no right in the Applicant’s terms of appointment for him to not be subject to comments from staff representatives. There is also no right in the Applicant’s terms of appointment for him to compel the Administration to issue communications in this regard. The Applicant did not submit a request for management evaluation of the decisions or implied decisions identified in the application within the statutory 60-day deadline
The Tribunal found that the application insofar as it related to a 26 September 2019 email was not receivable ratione materiae because that decision was not final. It did not produce a direct legal impact on the Applicant’s legal status or have a legal effect on his terms of appointment or contract of employment. The applicable legal decision was a Circular dated 18 October 2019. That Circular confirmed to the Applicant that he had not been selected for any of the posts he had applied for in 2019. The Tribunal found the application irreceivable in relation to three decisions contested by the...
The Administration’s decision to redeploy the Applicant to Nairobi was subject to the condition that he be medically cleared. This condition has not been met to date, and consequently, the decision has not been implemented. Therefore, none of the challenged administrative decisions have yielded any direct legal consequences in the Applicant’s terms of appointment, which remain unchanged. The applications are therefore non-receivable ratione materiae. The Applicant appealed this administrative decision before the Tribunal before MEU’s deadline to respond to his request for management evaluation...
The Tribunal found that the Applicant had filed the application without awaiting a response to his request for management evaluation. In view of this, the Tribunal found the application not receivable and dismissed it.
The email identified by the Applicant as the contested administrative decision does not constitute a fresh decision but a mere restatement of a previous email. It therefore cannot be considered to produce consequences on the legal order and is therefore not a challengeable administrative decision. The Applicant failed to contest the assignment of her current functions when notified to her. Therefore, the Applicant would be barred from contesting at this point that such assignment was in non-compliance with her contractual rights or conditions of employment.
The impugned decision did not produce any direct legal consequence on the Applicant’s terms of appointment or his contract of employment since he had an FTA which did not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of length of service. The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s assertion that he had a legitimate expectation of a two-year contract renewal as was usually the case ran counter to the clear and consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that the renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts did not, in and of itself...
The impugned decision did not produce any direct legal consequence on the Applicant’s terms of appointment or his contract of employment since he had an FTA which did not carry any expectancy, legal or otherwise, of renewal or conversion, irrespective of length of service. The Tribunal held that the Applicant’s assertion that he had a legitimate expectation of a two-year contract renewal as was usually the case ran counter to the clear and consistent jurisprudence of the Appeals Tribunal that the renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive contracts did not, in and of itself...
