16 accordingly upheld by the court. The plaintiff is a body corporate and cannot therefore rely on the provisions of Article 1 O(d). 51. The Court must place it on record that even a cursory reading of the application would indicate that the plaintiff was complaining, inter alia, of a denial of the right to fair hearing which is a fundamental right, open to any party who is affected by a tribunal's decision. That right is not dependent on human rights, and for that reason a party who has such a complaint of denial of fair hearing should not be thrown out of a court without first being heard. That was sufficient justification for this Court to embark upon hearing this application in the first place. Being a Member State of the Community, the defendant owes ru1 obligation to every ECOWAS citizen or entity to ensure fair hearing within its territory, failing which this Court will have the right to entertain an application by an aggrieved party, even if it is based on the Court's inherent jurisdiction. 52. The court, having detem1ined that the plaintiff has no locus in human rights and, having decided that the defendant could not be brought before this court for acts of her officials under Article 10(c) of the ru11ended Protocol, the only issues remaining to be dete1mined on merit are whether the plaintiff was denied the right to hearing or fair hearing in the defendant's territory; and whether the defendant sold the vessel or played any role in its sale. 53. The court co 1siders it expedient to rule on the issue of ownership of the vessel in dispute before moving on· to the ru1alysis of the merits of the application before us. Learned counsel to the defendant in his cross-examination of the plaintiffs witness as well as in his final address to the Court sought to dispute plaintiff's ownership of the vessel, the subject matter of the present proceedings. However, plaintiff's ownership of the vessel has never been in dispute right from the outset of the events leading up to this suit. Defendant's agents . admitted that plaintiff is the legitimate owner of the vessel and dealt with plaintiff as such in all proceedings t11at took place in defendant's territory. Indeed, the record of proceedings clearly shows that defendant's agent, the Port Commandant asked plaintiff to pay the Port charges and then its vessel would be released to it. There has been no adverse claim to this vessel. The Court therefore finds as a fact that the plaintiff was the true owner of the vessel MV Ocean King. 16