Relying on the authority in Scott- vs. Brown Dowering, NC Nab & Co. [1892] 2Q.B 728 where it is stated that: “No Court ought to enforce an illegal contract or allow itself to be made the instrument of enforcing obligations alleged to arise out of a contract or transaction which is illegal, if the illegality is dully brought to the notice of the Court, and if the person invoking the aid of the Court is himself implicated in the illegality,” Counsel for the Claimant consequently submitted that the latter was appointed as a Professional Staff for the Secretariat in accordance with the Staff Rules and Regulations. In conclusion, Counsel for the Claimant invited the Court to answer Issue No.2 in the affirmative. In response to the foregoing, Counsel for the Respondent vehemently opposed the claim and contended that the Claimant was not a staff member governed by the EAC Staff Rules and Regulations (2006), and that instead, the Claimant’s contract was concluded under RISP. However, Counsel for the Respondent agreed with Counsel for the Claimant on the fact that the nature of the sub-judice matter is an employment dispute that would be resolved by the interpretation of the Staff Rules and Regulations, Council directives, decisions or its recommendation and opinions. He further invited the Court to apply those principles in addressing the dispute. Counsel for the Respondent thereafter asserted that according to Regulation 20(2) of the Staff Rules and Regulations, 2006: CLAIM NO.1 OF 2012 Page 11