2. Declare that the Defendant and/or its Officers have no legal justification to demand payment from a Community citizen before allowing him or her to travel from one Member State to another. 3. Declare that the physical assault and wounds caused to the Applicant by the Officer of the Defendant constitute a violation of the right to the respect of human dimity, as provided for in Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. 4. Issue an order of perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant and its Officers from any further intimidation and harassment of the Applicant. 5. Order the Defendant to pay Three Hundred Thousand US Dollars (US$ 300,000) in compensation. 6. Adjudge that the Applicant's fundamental human rights relating to the dignity of his person and to his freedom of movement have been violated, and as such he is entitled to an amount of Three Hundred Thousand American Dollars (US$ 300,000), for general damages. 9. In reply to the Application by Mr. Daouda Garba, the Republic of Benin, on 15 May 2009, deposited at the Registry of the Court, its Memorial in Defence in which it raised in limine litis the incompetence of the Court. It considered that the action by the Applicant must be declared inadmissible, for violation of Article 33 (a) of the Rules of the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS and of Article 10 (d)-i × Access to the Court is open to the following: d) Individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: i. Not be anonymous; nor [sic] of the Supplementary Protocol on the Court. As to the First Plea-in-law in Connection with the Preliminary Objection 10. In regard to the first plea-in-law, the Republic of Benin cited Article 33 of the Rules of the Court which states that the Application must contain the address of the applicant. It indicated that his formality was not fulfilled in the Application of Mr. Daouda Garba, in that his address did not feature in his application. That instead of the required address, it is rather his place of work which is indicated; and that the indication of the professional address of his Lawyer does not remedy this defect of procedure. 11. Relying on this defect in address, Counsel for the Defendant contended that the action by Plaintiff is improperly filed and defective and that it must be dismissed; whereas Counsel for the Plaintiff maintained that on the contrary, his action was properly filed at the Registry of the Court and that it must be admitted. As to the Second Plea-in-law of the Preliminary Objection 12. As regards the plea-in-law of the Preliminary Objection, the Defendant referred to Article 10 (d)-i × Access to the Court is open to the following: d) Individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of application for which shall: i. Not be anonymous; nor [sic] which provides that in bringing cases before the Court: "Access ... is open to ... individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of the application for which shall not be anonymous"; to maintain its stance that the Application remains anonymous, even if the name of the Applicant was indicated therein without him signing it in his own hand. 13. Therefore, in regard to these two pleas-in-law, the Defendant asked that the Court to declare that the action brought by Mr. Daouda Garba is inadmissible in terms of formal presentation, and to ask him to bear the costs. 14. Counsel for the Plaintiff responded to this and made reference to the incident which occurred on 13 January 2008 when the Applicant was travelling to Ouagadougou, and stated that he was attacked and beaten up by the Benin Immigration Officer who asked for the sum of 300 Naira before stamping his international passport. He added that it was because he refused to comply with that demand that he and his colleague came under those attacks. 15. Counsel for the Plaintiff referred to Exhibit "A" and argued that Mr. Daouda Garba's international passport was issued by the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and that for the Benin Immigration Officer to have refused to stamp it, he had failed to carry out his duties, and equally by kicking the bag containing the laptop computer. 3