Receivability

The UNAT held that the appeal against the two interlocutory Orders became moot following the issuance of Judgment No. UNDT/2022/124 and that the UNDT did not err in delivering its Judgment during the pendency of that appeal.  The UNAT nevertheless observed that the UNDT erred in law by imposing an unreasonably short period for compliance with Order No. 157 (NBI/2022).  Despite this, the UNAT concluded that, as the proceeding was unreceivable, this finding did not assist the Appellant in his case.  With regard to Order No. 158 (NBI/2022), the UNAT held that the UNDT rightfully refused to...

The UNAT dismissed the interlocutory appeal as not receivable on grounds that the UNDT had not clearly exceeded its competence or jurisdiction or assumed a jurisdiction it did not have when it consolidated Mr. Toson's cases.  The UNAT also agreed with the Secretary-General that Mr. Toson had advanced similar unsuccessful arguments in an earlier UNAT case that he brought, but Mr. Toson refused to be guided by that judgment prior to pursuing the present appeal.  The UNAT put Mr. Toson on notice that he risks incurring an award of costs for vexatious litigation if he persists in pursuing the same...

UNAT rejected the Secretary-General’s interlocutory appeal against the UNDT order as not receivable, finding that UNDT had discretionary authority in case management and the production of evidence in the interest of justice. UNAT held that UNDT had decided on a measure of inquiry, the necessity of which it had sole authority to assess. UNAT held that it was not in the interest of the internal system of justice to consider an appeal against a simple measure of inquiry.

UNAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the UNDT’s exercise of its jurisdictional powers, conferred on UNDT by its Statute, which enables cases to be judged fairly and expeditiously. UNAT held that the complaints made by the Secretary-General fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of UNDT, notwithstanding the alleged breach of procedural fairness. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

UNAT considered the Secretary-General's appeal of Order No. 081 (NBI/2011) and two appeals by Mr Nwuke against UNDT Order No. 101 (NBI/2011) and judgment No. UNDT/2012/002. The Secretary-General asserted that UNDT exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering the suspension of a contested decision without making a finding as to whether the requirements for suspension of action under Article 2(2) of the UNDT Statute had been met. UNAT held that UNDT did not respect the limit of five working days, as set forth in Villamoran (2011-UNAT-160), when it extended the suspension until 17 August 2011 when the...

UNAT considered the appeal, in which the Secretary-General requested that UNAT consider the appeal receivable and find that UNDT exceeded its competence in ordering a suspension of action on the decision not to extend Mr Rawat’s appointment. UNAT noted that, in imminently executing the administrative order, UNDT failed to comply with the five-working-day limit, set forth in Villamoran (2011-UNAT-160), without giving any reasons for doing so and thus, clearly exceeded its competence. UNAT consequently held that the appeal against the contested order was receivable and founded. UNAT rescinded...

UNAT held that Ms Mpacko’s claims addressed the merits of the UNDT decision and did not amount to claims that the UNDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko’s application for suspension of action. UNAT held that the appeal was not receivable.

UNAT considered three appeals by Mr Bastet against Order No. 96 (NY/2013), Order No. 58 (GVA/2013)), and Order No. 160 (GVA/2013). Regarding UNDT Order No. 96 (NY/2013), UNAT held that the decision to transfer the Appellant’s case to Geneva fell squarely within the jurisdiction and competence of UNDT. Regarding the second complaint, namely that UNDT exceeded its competence and/or erred in law, fact, or procedure in restricting disclosure of documents and witnesses, UNAT held that to order, or not to order certain documents also fell within the discretion of UNDT. UNAT held that the Appellant...

UNAT considered an appeal by Mr Nadeau of Order No. 184 and his request that both Order Nos. 184 and 169 be rescinded. UNAT held that he did not demonstrate that UNDT had clearly exceeded its jurisdiction or competence in rejecting his request for new documents to be introduced into evidence. UNAT noted that the issue could be raised on appeal against the final judgment on the merits. UNAT is competent to review whether certain facts remained unresolved at the UNDT level and to consider the need for factual determinations based on the whole of the relevant evidence. UNAT dismissed the appeal.

On the request for the oral hearing, UNAT held that the matter could be considered just as well on written submissions and that it was not persuaded that an oral hearing was necessary in the interests of justice. UNAT held that the Appellant’s complaints were about the content of the orders made, not about whether UNDT was empowered to make such orders, and as such, his appeal was not receivable and had to be dismissed. Noting that the case would be dismissed, UNAT made the following observations on the merits of the appeal: (1) UNDT was entitled to determine issues of receivability in...