-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.”