063 (NBI/2025), George Lwanda
UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
1. The Tribunal noted that, in his reply, the Respondent informed the Tribunal that he had voluntarily decided to extend the Applicant’s appointment through 30 June 2025. As an annex to the reply, the Respondent provided a copy of the Applicant’s Personnel Action, indicating that his appointment had been extended to 30 June 2025.
2. The Tribunal thus held that, in light of the above, the Applicant’s request for suspension of the implementation of the contested administrative decision had become moot. The Tribunal, therefore, did not find it necessary to examine whether the three statutory requirements specified in art. 2.2 of its Statute, namely prima facie unlawfulness, urgency and irreparable damage, were met in the case at hand.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant sought to suspend a decision which he described as “20-day extension of appointment”.
Legal Principle(s)
Pursuant to art. 2.2 of the Tribunal Statute, an application for suspension of action can only be considered where the contested decision appears prima facie to be unlawful, in cases of particular urgency, and where its implementation would cause irreparable damage.