“……. If the contract is lawful in its formation, but one Party alone intends to exploit it for an illegal purpose, the law not unnaturally takes the view that the innocent Party need not be adversely affected by the guilty intention of the other.” As consequences of such a kind of contract, the same author further pointed out that: “The situation envisaged here is that contract is lawful ex-facie and is not disfigured by a common intention to break the law, but that one of the Parties, without the knowledge of the other, in fact exploits it for some unlawful purpose. In these circumstances, the guilt Party suffers the full impact of the maxim ex-turpi causa non oritur action and all remedies are denied to him…… On the other hand, the rights for the innocent Party are unaffected.” According to Counsel for the Claimant, the above principle applies to the Claimant’s contract to the extent that the Staff Rules and Regulations provide for a written contract in recruitment or appointment of any employee. However, the existence of a contract like the one at hand was lawful ex-facie whereas the Respondent misrepresented its formation and implementation for unlawful purpose to limit the tenure of the Claimant for reasons only known by the Respondent. CLAIM NO.1 OF 2012 Page 10