6 categorized the expenses thereof. Plaintiff also stated that it seeks the sum of US$ 30 Million as general and punitive damages against the defendant. 16. Learned counsel continued by stating that whilst the plaintiff called Mr. Olakunle Kuteyi as its sole witness and led evidence to prove the averments contained in its pleadings, the defendant did not and thus effectively abandoned all the avem1ents contained in its statement of defence. Counsel argued that it is trite law that a Court of law can only act on evidence placed before it and that averments in pleadings are no evidence. Counsel further submitted that the defence consists of mere technical objections, ·which objections this Honourable Court decided in its Ruling of 27th April 2010 that h would be considered together with the substantive case. 17. Learned counsel went on to recount extensively the evidence of plaintiff's witness and concluded that upon the consideration of the entire evidence before the Court, the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought. Counsel to the plaintiff went on to state that the decision of the Tribunal Hors Classe which allegedly divested the plaintiff of the ownership of its vessel without the plaintiff s knowledge was a flagrant violation of the plaintiff's right to fair hearing and the right to own moveable property as guaranteed under the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights. Learned counsel drew this conclusion by arguing that in line with the cardinal principle of law "audi alteram partem" rule, which literally means "Hear both sides" the Tribunal erred by not giving the plaintiff the opportunity to be heard before arriving at its decision. 18. Cow1sel stated that it is the uncontroverted evidence of the plaintiff that it was not infom1ed of the proceedings leading up to the decision that divested it of the ownership of the vessel. According to counsel, plaintiff was not served with any court processes with respect to that trial. Counsel concluded that any legal proceedings conducted in breach of the "audi alteram partem" rule are a nullity and the aggrieved party is entitled "ex debito justiciae" to have that judgment or decision set aside. 19. Finally, learned counsel submitted that the deprivation of the plaintiff of its vessel in the way and manner disclosed by the evidence before the Court is a violation of its right to own property and to traverse freely within the ECOWAS 6