Deliberation 26. The Court examined all the issues canvassed by the parties including the salient points in relation to the Preliminary Objection herein. 27. We are not in doubt that on the point arising from the application of Article 9 (1) of the Protocol with particular reference to the application of equity, the well stated principle of law that cannot be faulted is that equity follows the Law but not otherwise. 28. The position stated above being so apt, that equity cannot stand where there is a law on the matter and that inherent jurisdiction confers no jurisdiction on the Court, the argument on the application of Article 9 (1) is devoid of substance. 29. Consequently, the question which we have now to determine in order to resolve the controversy in the Preliminary Objection is whether this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the substantive matter instituted by Mr. Olajide Afolabi, the Applicant, in this case. 30. Let it be stated that the question of competence is a serious one and the Courts which guard their jurisdiction jealously would always examine an application of this nature carefully as not to allow arbitrary ousting of its powers. 31. In clear terms the only question for us to determine herein is whether this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the suit instituted by the suit instituted by the Applicant. 32. It is a well established principle of law that a Court is competent when: 1) it is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; and 2) the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the Court from exercising its jurisdiction; and 3) the case comes before the Court initiated by due process of the law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction. 33. The position of law which cannot be overstated is that any defect the in competence is disastrous, for the proceedings are nullities, no matter how well conducted and decided, the defect is extrinsic to the adjudication. In the instant case the action was filed by the of Applicant who is an individual and the contention of the respondent on is that only a Member State may file the action on his behalf. 34. This contention brings us to examine Article 9 (3) of the Protocol of the Court. Looking at the cardinal principles of interpretation in ore relation to the said Article, does it call for resort to interpretation? When does the Court fall back on the rules of interpretation particularly the interpretation of Treaty? 35. In a study by FITZMAURICE of the decisions of the International Court of Justice involving the interpretation of Treaties, his analysis detects five principles as follows: i) Actuality (or textual interpretation) ii) Natural or ordinary Meaning; iii) Integration (or interpretation of the treaty as a whole); iv) Effectiveness (ut res magis valeat quam pereat); v) Contemporaneity (interpretation of texts and terms in the light of their normal meaning at the date of the conclusion) see Law of Treaties by McNair at page 364. 36. A very full statement on the first and second principles enunciated above from Cross on Statutory Interpretation, third edition by John Bell and George Engle in the Sussex Peerage Case page 50 stated: "... if the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in that natural and ordinary sense... But if any doubt arises from the terms employed by the legislature, it has always been held a safe means of collecting that intention to call in aid the ground and cause of the making of the statute ..." 37. This point leads us to consider the principles of another rudiment of interpretation called the Mischief Rule. This rule allows for a departure from the literal rule when the application of the statutory words in the ordinary sense would be repugnant to or inconsistent with some other provision in the statute or even when it would lead to what the Court considers being an absurdity. The usual consequence of applying the mischief Rule is that words which are in the statute are ignored or words which are not there are read in. 38. Apart from absurdity that the expounding of the legislation may produce in applying the literal rule, it 4