-6 8. The Plaintiff avers that the eighth contradiction is that the Court disallowed
claims contrary to its own cited position of law under paragraph 59 on page 28
of the same Judgment and reiterated in the consolidated Ruling of 4 th April
2014. By this position of the law, these claims stand proven since they were
not disputed or in dispute by the Defendants. The Plaintiff further avers that
the Court contradicted when it ruled thus: “under head II of particulars of
special damages, the Court notes with particular reference to per diem at
$287.5 per day claimed by the Plaintiff from March 2009 till judgment that per
diem are only earned by staff who travelled outside the host country of the first
Defendant on an approved official assignment and cannot be earned outside
the termination of appointment of the Plaintiff so therefore the claims stand as
unproved. See PARAGRAPH 56 OF COURT’S JUDGMENT.”
9. The Plaintiff avers that the ninth contradiction is that in the Court’s own cited
position of the law under paragraph 59 on page 28 of the same Judgment and
reiterated in the consolidated Ruling of 4th April 2014, when the Court ruled
thus: “a claim for defamation of character in that the Defendant portrayed the
Plaintiff as incompetent and that she was reported as a criminal at the Police
Office in Sierra Leone was defamation of character was not sufficiently
proved. No evidence was adduced as to allegation and the proof thereof before
this Court. The said claim therefore failed in its material particular. See
PARAGRAPH 60 OF COURT’S JUDGMENT.”
10. The Plaintiff avers that the tenth contradiction is in the Court’s own cited
position of the law under paragraph 59 on page 28 of the same Judgment and
reiterated in the consolidated Ruling of 4th April 2014. The Court in paragraph
62 of the Judgment ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/13 acknowledged “the Defendants
made no challenge to the claim in their Pleadings. The Plaintiff contends that
by this position of the Court, Plaintiff’s claim stands proven since it was
uncontroverted by the Defendants, but yet the Court ruled that the Plaintiff’s
claim was not sufficiently proven. Plaintiff contends that there was no further
proof required since the Defendants did not controvert said claim. The Court
ruled thus: “all other claims by the Plaintiff fell outside her entitlements after
the termination of her appointment except the above stated amounts. See
PARAGRAPH 65 OF COURT’S JUDGMENT.”