offer of appointment and the latter gave her consent in writing on 29th September, 2008, by signing the employment contract. According to Learned Counsel, in so doing, the Claimant found the terms and conditions of service fair enough and that would explain why she did not terminate her contract or sought legal interpretation of relevant provisions of the EAC Rules and Regulations from the Counsel to the Community (C.T.C). In addition, Counsel for the Respondent relied on the case of “Hall vs. Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd” [case No: EATRF/1998/0297], to stress that the instant employment contract was legal, in as far as the Appointing Authority acted within its powers to approve recruitment of the Claimant pursuant to Article 14 of the Treaty. Counsel for the Respondent further referred the Court to practice of other international organizations in particular the African Union Staff Rules and Regulations, and the United Nations Administrative Instruction ST/A1/2010/4/Dev.1 and to authorities to wit: Hall vs. Woolston Hall Leisure Ltd (Supra), L. Estrange vs. F. Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 kb 394, Peepay Intermak Ltd vs. Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [Care No: A3/2005] Kengrow Industries Ltd vs. Chdaran [Civil Appeal No.7 of 2001], Namyols Josephine vs. National Curriculum Development Centre [2008] HCT-00-CV-01222008 and Pan African Insurance Company (U) Ltd vs. International Air Transport Assoc. 00-cc-cs-0667 of 2003. CLAIM NO.1 OF 2012 Page 14

Select target paragraph3