b) She instituted this action against the Community three (3) years after the said interview, even when the Community had accepted back the staff who had resigned her office. c) That her application is just criticizing alleged malfunctioning of the administration of the Court of Justice, ECOWAS. 17. The Defendants submit that the act of reinstatement is an administrative act which would have been wrongful or caused prejudice to the right of the Applicant if she had the status of an aspirant to this position as a staff of the Court of Justice. 18. They state that the Applicant being a Civil Servant in Nigeria cannot therefore prove that the act of reinstatement of Personnel Officer within the Court of Justice is related to her own administrative career and has wrongfully infringed her right. 19. The Defendants in conclusion submit that her case must be rejected for lack of legal grounds as stated above even on the one of African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights which is not applicable in this suit. 20. Consequently, they urge the Court to declare the Application inadmissible and also baseless for lack of capacity and legal protected interest which is wrongful damage. 21. Responding to the objection by the Defendants, the Applicant then filed a reply on the 1. 8th February, 2012 stating as follows: That the legal basis for her application contrary to the Defendants objection, is based on the Articles 9(1)g, 2 & 4 of the Supplementary Protocol (A/SP.l/OI/05) of the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS; 7