26. She relies once again on all the facts as earlier stated in her Application dealing with the alleged violations, while including that after exhausting all necessary avenues from the time she became aware of the illegality and breach of her fundamental rights, brought this action. 27. She goes further to state that the action complaint occurred in March, 2010 and the action was lodged in 2010, and therefore within the time limit as allowed by law. 28. The Applicant finally concludes by submitting that her case is competent and thus has merit while urging the Honorable Court to dismiss the objection of the Defendants. 29. On the 8th day of February, 2012, Counsels on behalf of parties joined issues and arguments were taken. ANALYSIS OF THE COURT 30. The analysis of the Court in examining the arguments put forward by both Parties shall be guided by the redresses sought by the Plaintiff with the present lawsuit filed against the Defendants. 31. Contrary to the first impression that flows from the narration of her participation in the recruitment process that led to the employment of Mrs. Mariam Kone and her feeling of being cheated, the Applicant is however not praying the said process to be nullified. Her statement of claims and the observations made by her own Counsel during the hearing of the preliminary objection are very clear on that point. He said: //The case before this Court is not a case where the applicant is seeking to be employed because she had attended an interview. That is not the case before 9