“All Professional Staff shall be appointed on a five year contract, which may, subject to satisfactory performance, be renewed once by the Council.” He consequently urged the Court to answer issue No.3 in the affirmative. Council for the Respondent, on his part, contended that the Claimant’s case was flimsy and the evidence provided was inadequate to enable the Court to rule against the Respondent. It was his submission that the Claimant was employed as a Project Accountant; a position which was not listed as an established position as per EAC Staff Rules and Regulations, 2006. Learned Counsel averred that project positions are funded by various EAC Development Partners governed by different Cooperation Agreements concluded between EAC and such other Partners. He further argued that for officers working under projects, their terms and conditions of work as well as the duration of their contracts are governed by Cooperation Agreements between EAC and Development Partners, and that this is clearly indicated on paragraph 1 of the notification letter of the Claimant’s appointment as reproduced elsewhere in this judgment. According to Mr. Agaba, Counsel for the Respondent, there was no misrepresentation or fraudulent intent from the Respondent and, therefore, Counsel submitted that it would be illogical to conclude that the Claimant was entitled to a five-year contract as CLAIM NO.1 OF 2012 Page 23