-5 3. The Plaintiff avers that the third contradiction is “of the judgment asking “are such claims legitimate?” clearly and simply portray instant negative connotations. “ The claims that flow directly from the termination of the contract and covered by the provisions of the WAMA Regulations are legitimate but where the claims are not within the flow of damages as a result of the termination. See Paragraph 45 of COURT’S JUDGMENT” 4. The Plaintiff avers that the fourth contradiction is that the case decided was only for unlawful dismissal, despite the preponderance of contrary facts in the application of the same judgment. The Court indicated the Plaintiff cannot claim back her unlawfully seized properties and other claims to recover damages. 5. The Plaintiff avers that the fifth contradiction is that “part of this claim by the Plaintiff had been paid to the Plaintiff through her GTB account” has no support in any documents before the Court and is a contradiction. The Court held inter alia thus: The above claims have been found to be outside the service period and therefore extraneous to the claims allowable in a contract of service after such contract had been terminated by the employer as in the instant case. We in line with trite law on such contracts disallow all the claims stated above in Paragraph 54 therein and hold that the claims failed to succeed. See Paragraph 50 – 52 of COURT’S JUDGMENT” 6. The Plaintiff avers that the sixth contradiction is that “to basically apply the principle that the defendants are only liable for the wrongful dismissal in damages and nothing more when the Plaintiff with statutory cover is unlawfully dismissed has no basis in law and is thus a fundamental contradiction to be reviewed for supplemental judgment. “For the hiring or renting hotel expenses after termination, this Court is of the opinion that such claims being outside the claimable claims, where a contract of service is terminated, the Plaintiff cannot succeed and we disallow same. See Paragraph 55 of COURT’S JUDGMENT” 7. The Plaintiff avers that the seventh contradiction is that the Application before the Court did not in any way tie the claims for hiring or renting hotels expense to the unlawful termination of Plaintiff’s contract. These claims were clearly and unambiguously tied to a separate illegality, i.e., the unlawful eviction of the Plaintiff from her residence where she had been a paying tenant.