In Brief
The respondent's father, a Ministry of Information and Broadcasting employee, died in May 1996. His widow sought compassionate appointment for the respondent, but representations were rejected in 1997 and 1999. The respondent did not approach the Central Administrative Tribunal until 2007—over a decade later. Although the Tribunal issued orders for reconsideration, the claim was rejected for exceeding the three-year consideration period under the scheme. The High Court granted mandamus. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, holding that compassionate appointment claims must be pursued promptly, as the remedy's purpose is to address immediate post-death financial crisis. The delay of over a decade extinguished the basis for compassionate appointment.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.