at its 11th Meeting, approved the recruitment of a Project Accountant for the lifespan of RISP. It was, therefore, the Respondent’s case that when the Council passed the above decision, it expressly specified that the Project Accountant was appointed for the duration of RISP. Counsel for the Respondent averred that job advertisement (REF: EAC/HR/07-08/028 Project Accountant) clearly stated that the Project Accountant’s position fell in the project category in the strict line of the above Council’s decision. Counsel for the Respondent argued that, when the Council appointed the Claimant to the position of Project Accountant at its 16th Meeting held on 13th September, 2008, it knew that the position was not among the established positions approved in 2006. He therefore submitted that it is unfair to allege that the Respondent acted ultra vires his powers and contrary to the Staff Rules and Regulations while implementing the Council’s decision. It is Counsel’s further submission that in his capacity of Principal Executive Officer of the Community and in accordance with Article 71(l) of the Treaty, the Respondent exercised powers conferred on him in recruiting the Claimant to the Project Accountant’s position funded by RISP and governed by a Cooperation Agreement. The Court was afterwards referred to several similar decisions taken by the Council, but we do not deem it necessary to reproduce them. Counsel for the Respondent also argued that the Claimant was even given a chance to consider the terms and conditions of her CLAIM NO.1 OF 2012 Page 13