Nyeko who was the then Project Accountant with a five year contract governed by the EAC Rules and Regulations. We heard Counsel for the Respondent stressing that the Claimant was recruited as a Project Accountant under RISP as indicated in the advertised job position. But from the reading of the said advertisement, no such an indication can be found. Moreover, as we earlier on found after a deep analysis of the matter, the Claimant was recruited as a Project Accountant under a Professional Staff position governed by EAC Staff Rules and Regulations. In the light of the foregoing and basing on Article 16 of the Treaty, there is no way that the Council’s decision would be disregarded in favour of an advertisement notice of a job position or a notification letter which does not conform with the said decision since this would be tantamount to negating powers of the Council. Having so found and held, we are also of the firm view that the refusal by the Respondent to respond to any of the Claimant’s protestation about her employment status is administratively unjustifiable and that the continuing renewal of her short term contract was inconsistent with the Council’s decision. Given all our findings on this issue, we are now of the settled view that Issue No.3 is answered in the affirmative. CLAIM NO.1 OF 2012 Page 25