## S. Mohamudbucus, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent, IMFAT Order No. 2026-1 (March 31, 2026)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [S. Mohamudbucus, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent, IMFAT Order No. 2026-1 (March 31, 2026)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2026-1-summary.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2026-1-summary.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2026-1-summary.pdf.json)

---

### Background
- Applicant, a former contractual employee of the Fund, challenged what she described as the Fund’s “decision not to reinstate the Applicant following her coerced resignation on October 11, 2024 and to enforce separation [of Applicant from the Fund] on 27 January 2025.”
- Applicant contended that the arbitration clause in her employment contract could not displace the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute.
- The Fund filed a motion for summary dismissal (the “Motion to Dismiss”), arguing that the Application was clearly inadmissible ratione personae, ratione materiae, and ratione temporis.
- Applicant appended to her Objection a “Notice of Continuing Humanitarian Hardship and Request for Urgent Determination” (the “Notice”), to which the Fund responded.
- The Fund did not object to:
  - inclusion of Applicant’s Notice in the official record;
  - expedited consideration of the Motion to Dismiss;
  - confirmation that the request for provisional relief does not reopen the pleadings.
- The Fund opposed Applicant’s other requests, arguing the applicable requirements were not met for:
  - provisional relief;
  - judicial notice of alleged economic hardship; and
  - setting an early schedule for oral proceedings.

### Tribunal’s requirements for provisional relief
- The Tribunal held, in light of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Commentary on the Statute, and the Tribunal’s jurisprudence, that three requirements must be met for provisional relief:
  1. An international tribunal may not order provisional relief if the dispute prima facie appears to fall outside of the scope of the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
  2. The applicant must seek the suspension of a decision that is contested before the Tribunal (i.e., the relief must suspend a contested decision).
  3. The applicant must show that the requested measures are necessary, meaning he or she would suffer “irreparable harm” in the absence of provisional relief.

### Application of the requirements to Applicant’s requests
- On the first requirement (jurisdiction/admissibility):
  - Because the Fund’s Motion to Dismiss put admissibility at the heart of the dispute, the Tribunal declined to make any pronouncements on jurisdiction or admissibility prior to rendering a Judgment on admissibility.
- On the second requirement (suspension of a contested decision):
  - The Tribunal found Applicant did not meet this requirement.
  - Applicant sought “interim subsistence relief” or “provisional subsistence assistance” rather than suspension of the contested decision.
- On the third requirement (irreparable harm):
  - Applicant alleged primarily economic damage—loss of income due to separation—and consequential harms:
    - (i) the exhaustion of her credit facilities and having to borrow from family members;
    - (ii) over 1,000 unsuccessful applications to other positions;
    - (iii) the transfer of her child to a lower-cost school;
    - (iv) the inability to cover the costs of utilities and her doctoral studies; and
    - (v) the loss of access to certain medical appointments.
  - The Tribunal considered the alleged damage primarily economic and capable of monetary compensation, consistent with the measures sought by Applicant.
  - Applicant failed to submit documentation supporting her “humanitarian harm” allegations.
  - The Tribunal concluded the alleged difficulties, while unfortunate, were not irreparable within the meaning of the case law.

### Judicial notice of “humanitarian hardship”
- The Tribunal found the doctrine of judicial notice inapplicable.
- The facts Applicant relied on were not matters of “public notoriety” or “common” or “public knowledge” as required by the doctrine.
- The alleged facts were disputed by the other party and lacked corroborating documentation.

### Request for early oral proceedings
- Applicant sought an early schedule for oral proceedings.
- Under Rule XIII of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the applicant must show such proceedings would be “useful.”
- The Tribunal found Applicant had not shown usefulness:
  - The issues in the Motion to Dismiss were limited in scope and primarily legal.
  - The issues had been sufficiently briefed in writing by the parties.

### Decision
- Applicant’s requests were denied:
  - provisional relief — denied;
  - judicial notice of humanitarian hardship — denied;
  - setting an early hearing schedule — denied.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2026-1-summary.pdf_