Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Supreme Court of Nauru

In the Matter of Michael Dekarube and Chief Secretary [2009] NRSC 9; Public Service Appeal No 1 of 2008 (2 April 2009)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NAURU

Public Service Appeal No. 1/08

IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL DEKARUBE
AND CHIEF SECRETARY

Vinci Clodumar for Appellant
Robert Kaierua for the Respondent

Date: 02 April, 2009.

This is an appeal against the decision of the Chief Secretary set out in her letter to the appellant dated 07 January, 2007 (but in fact written on 07 January, 2008). In that letter the Chief Secretary informed the appellant that she found him guilty of the disciplinary charges with which he had been charged. She determined that he be reduced to a lower office and salary.

In his written submissions supported by oral submissions, Mr. Clodumar on behalf of his client has prayed for the following relief.

1. Full repayment of salary during the period of his suspension without pay from 14th September to 01 November 2007 (6 weeks pay)

2. Reinstatement of his status Director level and salary;

3. Repayment of the difference in salary from his demotion from director level to technician scale – difference of $139.00 per fortnight.

4. Punitive damage of $40,000 for the pain and suffering from the embarrassment and shame he had endured from the accusations. This resulted in his use of all the leave entitlement so that he could stay away from the office because of the shame as an ‘unattached’ officer.

5. Repayment of the special leave without pay he has taken since his leave credit expired in the last week of February, 2009 until now to await the outcome of his appeal; and

6. That the Secretary for Home Affairs apologizes in writing to the Appellant on her behalf and those on the petition.

We have considered carefully all the documents submitted and Mr. Clodumar’s submissions and those of Mr. Kaierua.

We have come to the dissuasion that the finding of facts was a responsibility of the Chief Secretary and that we should not interfere with those findings unless we were to conclude that she had made some obvious mistake. We can find no mistake and go further, saying that on the documents we have seen the findings were amply justified. We accordingly discuss the appeal.

For the Public Service Appeals Board

HON. ROBIN MILLHOUSE
CHIEF JUSTICE