Â鶹APP

The Victim clearly had a motive not to tell the truth before the Tribunal. And she had an interest in the outcome of this case since continued payments fromthe Applicant depended on his continued employment with the Â鶹APP in Congo. She even agreed that she was concerned about how she would survivewithout financial support from the Applicant. For all these reasons, the Tribunal did not find her testimony in court to be credible and relied instead on the statements she made before the Applicant¡¯s payments. A similar analysis applied to the Applicant¡¯s testimony. He too had an obvious...

The UNAT held that the staff member¡¯s application was not receivable, as he did not file a timely request for management evaluation of the contested decision.

The UNAT observed that the staff member was notified of the contested decision on 9 November 2023. Accordingly, he had until 8 January 2024 to file his request for management evaluation, but instead filed it on 12 August 2024, more than 270 days after being notified of the contested decision. It further found that, even assuming that he was notified of the contested decision in February 2024, his request was still submitted well...

The UNAT held that the UNDT properly exercised its discretion in excluding the former staff member¡¯s allegations of racism within the CAF and his claim that his counsel was treated unfairly during the UNDT hearing, as well as in denying his request to call the investigator to testify. Nevertheless, the UNAT concluded that the UNDT erred in finding that the facts underlying the alleged misconduct had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, particularly in its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.

Regarding V01¡¯s allegations, the UNAT found that the UNDT improperly explained away...

The UNAT determined that it had been demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member committed serious misconduct by: i) failing to return to the Â鶹APP Federal Credit Union (UNFCU) funds of USD 587,428.65 that were erroneously credited to her account and to which she was not entitled; ii) failing to comply with a judgment issued by the High Court of Zambia (High Court Judgment), which ordered her to return the aforementioned funds to UNFCU; and iii) submitting false documentation and/or misrepresenting facts during the investigation conducted by the Office...

The Tribunal held:

a. Some of the contested decisions were manifestly irreceivable as already determined by the Tribunal in Likukela Order No. 161 (NBI/2024) and Likukela UNDT/2025/006. These matters would not be considered again by the Tribunal in accordance with the doctrine of res judicata.

b. The claims regarding the alleged theft of the Applicant's wages, lack of a legal basis for recovery of her final pay and illegally withholding her final pay were not receivable ratione materiae for failure to file a timely request for management evaluation.

c. The claim alleging prevention of the payment...

On delegation on authority, the Respondent argued that the presumption of regularity avoids the need for proof absent a prima facie case. This argument is entirely correct. The Respondent was required to and submitted email correspondence between the ASG/OHRM and the USG/DMSPC regarding this case. In that correspondence, the ASG/OHRM attaches her recommendation to impose a disciplinary sanction on the Applicant, along with a ¡°detailed analysis in the body to the recommendation.¡± In response, the USG/DMSPC writes¡°Recommendation approved.¡± The Tribunal was therefore convinced that the contested...

The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine this application on the merits as it challenges a decision that was not submitted for management evaluation in a timely manner. The application is therefore not receivable ratione materiae.

The Applicant¡¯s contention in respect of his putative privileges and immunities as a staff member of the Â鶹APP is misconceived. Section 20 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Â鶹APP is clear: Privileges and immunities are granted to officials in the interests of the Â鶹APP and not for the personal benefit of the...

In the case at hand there is clearly a lack of mens rea. The Respondent failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the contention that the Applicant unlawfully made any misrepresentation or had any intent to defraud or deceive when submitting her request. She did not knowingly misrepresent or submit falsified documents. She submitted a birth certificate containing the names and occupation of both parents. She did not lie while filling her Questionnaire on Dependency Status (Form P84) as she wrote that she was single, and logically and truthfully answered ¡°N/A¡± when asked after ¡°is your...