V.
THE RESPONDENT’S CASE
In his response, the Respondent refuted the Claim on the
following grounds:
“Firstly, that by way of a Preliminary Objection pleaded
that the instant Claim was time-barred;
Secondly, that the claimant was a project staff who
was on
a contract governed
under
the Regional
Integration Support Agreement (RISP);
Thirdly, that the Programme that the Claimant was
holding did not entitle her to a five-year contract
with a possibility of renewal as alleged by her;
Fourthly, that the position of a Project Accountant was
created by the Council of Ministers and not by the
Secretariat as alleged at its 11th Meeting held on 28th
March to 4th April 2006 in Arusha, Tanzania;
Fifthly, that the Claimant during her tenure period of
service earned USD6,128.00 per month instead of
USD4,440 which is earned by an EAC employee on the
P2 position;
Sixthly, that the Claimant did not for the entire
duration of her contract with the Respondent make any
attempt
to
claim
the
review
of
her
terms
and
duration; and
Finally, the Respondent prays that the Claim
against
the Respondent be dismissed with costs.”
CLAIM NO.1 OF 2012
Page 6