January 2005 but on condition that the plaintiff tendered her resignation to take effect from the 31st of December 2004 but where she failed to do so, the letter of dismissal dated 24 September, 2004 shall remain valid. 60. The defendants also deposed in paragraph 4(xxvii) that following the vacancy in the post of Director of Administration in the ECOWAS secretariat the 1st defendant advertised the vacancy and called for a qualified candidate to fill the vacancy. The defendants, further deposed in paragraph 5 that the 2-4 defendant has not submitted their memorandum on the purported review to the Administration and Finance the first procedure Commission because for appeal for review was not followed as the plaintiff has not requested for the review of the sanction of retirement as requested. 61. And that there was no limitation of time within which the 2°4 and 34 defendants shall make submission of the memorandum to the Administration and Finance Commission as the Administration and Finance Commission had not met since the beginning of the year. When these depositions by the plaintiff are examined and given their proper placement for the consideration of the conditions for a grant of interlocutory injunction, the following issues are clearly discernible from the said facts: That the affidavits of the plaintiff if weighed against the facts deposed in the counter affidavits and further counter affidavits of the defendant, there is no doubt that serious issues have been raised that cannot be resolved by affidavit evidence but full trial of the issues, 62. While an application of this nature, does not involve a final determination of the merits, it does involve the exercise of a sound discretion. The complaint of the plaintiff was that the 1st defendant violated her right of appeal after the sanction of dismissal and that no amount of monetary compensation can be adequate. 14