adjudicated upon by another competent Court. In other words, the parties are the same, the subject matter is same and had previously been litigated upon. In Aliyu Tasheku V. FRN, ECW/CCJ/RUL/12/12, (unreported), The Court was of the view that the argument concerning res judicata can only succeed when it is established that the Application brought before it is essentially the same as another one already satisfactorily decided upon before a competent Domestic Court or an International Tribunal. The Defendant has failed to establish that this case has been satisfactorily decided by a National Court. They have also failed to prove that the Application brought before the Court is essentially the same as that of SERAP i.e. in terms of the subject matter and parties. From the foregoing, the issue of res judicata does not apply to the instant case and therefore fails. ON Pendency of suit before a Domestic Court The Defendant in challenging the jurisdiction of this Court argues that there is a pending case on the same subject matter before its Domestic Court. Article 10 (d) of the Supplementary Protocol provides: Access is open to individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights; the submission of Application for which shall: i) Not be anonymous; nor 21