In interpreting Article 13 aforementioned, the Court notes that whilst the requirement for priority is in descending order favoring candidates within the institution, it does not mandate exclusive recruitment of said candidates. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition at page 1194, defines priority inter alia as “When two persons have similar interests in respect of the same subject-matter, but one is entitled to exercise his right to the exclusion of the other, he is said to have priority.” The Court is mindful that the entitlement comes on the premise of equal qualification and skill; Article 13 (2) therefore serves as a mechanism of distinction in the event of equal qualification and not as a tool for discrimination of candidates. Article 13 of the Regulations is to be read at all times in tandem with Article 6 of the Staff Rules which states that whilst priority is given to the highly qualified staff, geographical distribution, physical fitness for the post, and manner of appointment are also considerations of merit. Further, the Court deems Article 14 as the personification of non-discrimination in the recruitment of professional staff. However, Article 13 (3) gives the internal staff member a priority by being exempted from the age limitation set out in recruitment. The evidence submitted by the Applicant is that a vacancy was advertised by the Respondent, one for which he applied; the Court notes Exhibit 5 attached in support of this. The Applicant also submitted Exhibit 6 which is a letter to the President of the institution protesting for not being shortlisted in the recruitment exercise. The Court also notes that whilst the Respondent alleges that the Applicant vehemently attacked the credibility of management in this letter the content of the letter denotes an enquiry as to why the Applicant was not short listed and recounts the qualifications of the latter, whilst imploring for an investigation into what he called an 25 | P a g e