Article 9 (1) (f) (supra) the Court holds that this application is admissible and accordingly declares it as admissible. ISSUE 3: Whether the Applicant was unfairly dismissed by the Respondent. The Court will determine whether the Applicant was unfairly dismissed by addressing the following: the law governing dismissal - Dismissal in fact, the right to be heard and non-compliance with the rules in the recruitment process. • The law governing dismissal : Dismissal in fact The Applicant averred that he was appointed by way of letter dated 8th October, 2012 marked as Exhibit 2 and that he was later confirmed by way of letter dated as 1st April, 2015 and marked as Exhibit 3 of the Applicant’s annexure. The Respondent confirms the appointment and further affirmed that the Applicant’s appointment was governed by the Staff Rules and Regulations. However, the Respondent states that the Applicant failed to be confirmed upon completion of his probation and was confirmed a year later due to disciplinary measures taken against the Applicant, and relies on a letter dated 26th December, 2013 marked as Exhibit 7 in the Respondent’s annexure. The fact of the relationship between the parties was clearly illustrated in the case of Ifeta v. Shell Pet. Dev. Co. Ltd (2006) 7 MJSC 121 at page 133, para. G, Mohammed JSC had this to say: "In the determination of this issue, I need to emphasize the binding-ness of the terms of the contract of service between the parties. There is no doubt that the parties’ freedom of 15 | P a g e