The Supreme Court has dismissed an employment claim brought by former Principal Legal Officer of the Office of the Ombudsman, Eric Csiba, against the Ombudsman’s Office and three of its officials.

In a judgment delivered  on August 31st, Justice Maree MacKenzie finds that Mr Csiba had not proved his allegations of unjustified demotion and unlawful termination of employment.

Mr Csiba was originally appointed as Principal Legal Officer at the Office of the Ombudsman in March 2019.

From 2020, he worked under a series of fixed-term contracts as a legal advisor. Mr Csiba argued that, despite the contracts describing him as a legal advisor, he had been promoted to First Principal Legal Officer (FPLO) and performed the duties of that position for several years.

According to the written judgment, he claimed he was later demoted when Gregory Takau was appointed Acting First Principal Legal Officer in July 2024.

However, Justice MacKenzie found that while Mr Csiba had carried out the duties of the FPLO, there was insufficient evidence that his employment contract had been formally or impliedly varied to appoint him to that position.

The Court noted that his employment agreements identified him as a legal advisor, with duties that did not formally include heading or overseeing the legal services unit.

The Court therefore found that Mr Csiba had not established that he held the FPLO position and, as a result, had not proved that he had been demoted from it.

On his dismissal, Mr Csiba argued that he had a 12-month employment agreement extending his employment from July 2024 to July 2025.

The Court considered conflicting evidence about when that agreement was signed.

Justice MacKenzie found it was not established that the agreement was signed on 1 August 2024, as Mr Csiba claimed. The judgment noted that the document was dated 1 August 2023 and was signed by former Ombudsman Silas Bulu, who was no longer Ombudsman by August 2024.

The Court also noted that by that time the position of Ombudsman was vacant, Mr Bulu had been appointed Acting Ombudsman, and powers had been delegated to Dora Samuel. The disputed employment agreement, however, was not signed by Mr Bulu in his capacity as Acting Ombudsman or by Mrs Samuel under delegated authority.

The Court further considered a rescission agreement signed by Mr Csiba and Mr Bulu on 5 July 2024, which provided that Mr Csiba’s employment would end on 21 September 2024.

Justice MacKenzie found that Mr Csiba had not proved that the later 12-month agreement superseded that rescission agreement.

Although Mr Csiba continued working and receiving his salary after 21 September, the Court said he had not pleaded that his employment continued under an implied agreement.

As a result, the Court found that Mr Csiba had not established that a valid fixed-term employment agreement was in place when his employment was terminated on 3 October 2024.

His claims for unlawful or unjustified termination therefore could not succeed.

The Supreme Court dismissed the entire claim, with costs to be agreed or taxed.