41. The Applicants by an originating application before this Court contend that the disciplinary procedure leading to their suspension arising from a petition alleging misconduct by one Tiger P1 was unlawful. They further argue that their right to privacy was violated through an illegally obtained electronic audio-visual recording which formed the basis of the evidence of the allege misconduct contrary to the Data Protection Act of the Republic of Ghana. Applicants not satisfied with the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and the judicial decisions of the various actions they instituted before the High Courts and the Supreme Court of Ghana; approached this Court for the enforcement of the alleged violations of their rights to privacy, right to equality before the law, right to work and right to fair hearing. 42. The Respondent contend that the issues raised in this suit have been finally and effectively adjudicated upon by the Courts of competent jurisdiction in Ghana and that bringing it before this Court amounts to an abuse of Court process. That by assuming jurisdiction, this Court will be turned to an Appellate forum which it cannot rightly assume. They further contend that the issues in this application are caught up by the doctrine of res-judicata and therefore the Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear this case. 43. This Court has in its flourishing jurisprudence held that it lacks the jurisdiction to sit on appeal over decisions of National Courts. In BAKARY SARRE & 28 ORS V. THE REPUBLIC OF MALI (2011), ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/11, the Court in determining the application filed by the Plaintiffs held that: “The said application substantially seeks to obtain from the Court a reversal of judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Mali and seeks to project the Court of Justice of ECOWAS as a Court of cassation over the Supreme Court of Mali. Viewed from that angle, the Court declared that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the matter.” See also Ocean King v. Republic of Senegal Para 66, pg. 161. This position was reiterated that it does not compose itself as an appellate court over decisions of National courts. See SIKIRU ALADE V. FEDERAL REP. OF NIGERIA (2012); MUSA LEO KEIT V. MALI (2004-2009) pg. 72 Para 26 & DR. JERRY UGOKWE V. FRN & 1 OR, (2005), ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/05. 14