In the event that, the appointment was an error as Mr. Ochwada underscored it to be, it should have been taken to the Council for review as it has been the case for the appointment of Senior Administrative Officer (P2) (see EAC/CM/Decision 36). Finally, it is our finding that the letter of appointment of Ms. Angella Amudo as Project Accountant under RISP was not in conformity with the Council’s decision. In view of all the foregoing, we answer Issue No.2 in the affirmative. ISSUE NO.3: Whether the position of the Project Accountant that the Claimant held would entitle her to a five year contract with a possibility of renewal The main thrust of the Claimant’s submission is that she was recruited as a Project Account under EAC Staff Rules and Regulations. In support of his stance, Counsel for the Claimant referred the Court to the Scheduling Conference Notes, especially on point of agreement No.4 where it was agreed upon that: “The Applicant’s appointment with the Respondent fell in the category of Professional Staff.” On the basis of the foregoing, Counsel further referred us to Regulation 22(1) (c) which states that: CLAIM NO.1 OF 2012 Page 22