Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ms Mpacko¡¯s claims addressed the merits of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT decision and did not amount to claims that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT exceeded its competence or jurisdiction in denying her application for suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT did not exceed its competence or jurisdiction in denying Ms Mpacko¡¯s application for suspension of action. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµAT held that the appeal was not receivable.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ms Mpacko filed an application for suspension of action of the decision to reassign her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT denied her application for suspension of action pending management evaluation of the decision on the grounds that there was no particular urgency as required by Article 2. 2 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT Statute.
Legal Principle(s)
Generally, only appeals against final judgments are receivable; however, when it is clear that Ä¢¹½ÊÓÆµDT has exceeded its jurisdiction or competence, an interlocutory appeal will be receivable.