offer of appointment and the latter gave her consent in writing on
29th September, 2008, by signing the employment contract.
According to Learned Counsel, in so doing, the Claimant found
the terms and conditions of service fair enough and that would
explain why she did not terminate her contract or sought legal
interpretation of relevant provisions of the EAC Rules and
Regulations from the Counsel to the Community (C.T.C).
In
addition, Counsel for the Respondent relied on the case of “Hall
vs. Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd” [case No: EATRF/1998/0297],
to stress that the instant employment contract was legal, in as
far as the Appointing Authority acted within its powers to
approve recruitment of the Claimant pursuant to Article 14 of the
Treaty.
Counsel for the Respondent further referred the Court to practice
of other international organizations in particular the African
Union Staff Rules and Regulations, and the United Nations
Administrative
Instruction
ST/A1/2010/4/Dev.1
and
to
authorities to wit: Hall vs. Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd (Supra),
L. Estrange vs. F. Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 kb 394, Peepay
Intermak Ltd vs. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group
Ltd [Care No: A3/2005] Kengrow Industries Ltd vs. Chdaran
[Civil Appeal No.7 of 2001], Namyols Josephine vs. National
Curriculum Development Centre [2008] HCT-00-CV-01222008 and Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd vs.
International Air Transport Assoc. 00-cc-cs-0667 of 2003.
CLAIM NO.1 OF 2012
Page 14