17 54. The court considers a brief recount of the facts leading to this action as necessary. I t is not in dispute that plaintiffs vessel was towed to defendant's port by a vessel named M/V Maxti Carta belonging to Euskalduna de Pesca of Spain. After plaintiff had concluded negotiations with the defendant for the release of the vessel, Euska1duna de Pesca asked the plaintiff to pay it for the costs it incurred in bringing plaintiffs vessel to defendant's port. Plaintiff agreed in principle to pay Euskalduna de Pesca for the rescue service but the parties were unable to settle on the quantum of money to be paid, ensuing in a legal battle between them. Finally, plaintiff s vessel \Vas awarded to Euscalduna de Pesca upon the orders of a court of Senegal, defendant .herein. 55. A critical appraisal of the pleadings and evidence before this Court reveals that the main issue in this matter is whether defendant is liable for the sale or award of plaintiffs vessel to some entity other than the plaintiff The answer to this issue could be ascertained by carefully assessing the various judicial processes that took place and eventually led to a decision which divested plaintiff of the ownership of the vessel, and the role played by the defendant in determining whether defendant is culpable or not 56. The evidence before the Court indicates that there have been three judicial proceedings in the defendant's country in respect of the subject matter of the present case. The first judicial proceedings arose when Euskalduna de Pesca commenced an action before a Senegalese court asking for plaintiffs vessel to be awarded to it as compensation for the amount it spent on towing the vessel to defendant’s port. The court obliged and awarded plaintiff's vessel to Euskalduna de Pesca. 57. However, upon an application by the plaintiff, that decision was reversed. Upon the advice of the Nigerian Ambassador to Senegal, plaintiff approached the Tribunal of the lv1arine Merchant, culminating in the second judicial proceedings. This Tribunal decided that the plaintiff should deposit CFA 30.5 Million to secure the release of its vessel. Plaintiff refused to pay the CFA 30.5 million unless given an undertaking by the Director of Marine Merchant that the vessel would be released to it after the payment. The Director of the Marine Merchant refused to give any such undertaking and referred the plaintiff to the Port Commandant, who 17