SERAP v. Nigeria, Ruling, Suit No: ECW/CCJ/APP/08/09 and RUL. No: ECW/CCJ/APP/07/10 (ECOWAS, Dec. 10, 2010) 1/25/21, 1:48 PM 27. The 4th Defendant starts its preliminary objection contending that the Plaintiff is not a legal person Under Nigeria law and as such it has no capacity to institute proceedings before the Court.. The 4th Defendant aligns itself with the 3rd Defendant on the issue of jurisdiction saying that ECOWAS Court of Justice is not competent to adjudicate the dispute brought to it because it is neither s member of ECOWAS nor a Community Institution and is not otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. 28. Going further in its objection the 4tt Defendant states that the instruments set out in section 8 of the application namely the ECOWAS Revised Treaty, African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Universal Declaration on Human Rights have not been incorporated into Nigerian domestic law and are therefore incapable of being sources of enforceable obligation on the part of the 4th Defendant who is a private legal person existing solely under Nigerian law. Moreover, although the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights has been incorporated into Nigerian law by the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Act 1983, the ECOWAS Court is not one of courts specified under section 6(5) of the Nigerian Constitution 1999 as having jurisdiction to adjudicate in respect of alleged infractions of domestic Nigerian law. 29. In any event the 4th Defendant contends that the Plaintiff has no cause of action against it in respect of the matters the subject of these proceedings. The preliminary objection is concluded by the allegation that the claims asserted in the proceedings are statute barred pursuant to article 9(3) of the Protocol on the community Court of Justice as amended by Article 3 of the Supplementary Protocol of 2005 (A/SP.1/01/05), because the oil spills alleged in the application occurred prior to June 2006 and therefore more than three years before the commencement of these proceedings on 23rd July 2009. 30. The 5th Defendant bases its preliminary objection essentially on the same grounds invoked by the 3rd and 4th Defendants, that is lack of locus standi of the Plaintiff, absence of reasonable cause of action, incompetence of thr Court to deal with the claims against the Defendants, action being statute barred, the non disclosure by the plaintiff of any authority to allow it institute the proceedings on behalf of any community in Niger Delta and finally that the Plaintiff is not a legal person under Nigerian law with capacity to lodge the suit. 31. The 6th Defendant apart from relying on the same objections raised by the 3rd and 5th Defendants contend that the rights alleged to be infringed by it are economic and social rights and therefore are not justiciable as to confer jurisdiction on the Court. 32. The 7th Defendant's objection is on the grounds that the Plaintiff has no cause of action against it as its activities are solely on shore, to wit, marketing of oil products, and not oil exploration or production. In addition to that the 7th Defendant aligns itself with the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Defendants on the issues of limitation of action and locus standi. 33. The 8th and 9th Defendants align themselves with the issues raised by the other Defendants. The 9th Defendant also submits that the instruments relied on by the Plaintiff are unenforceable against it as a private person existing under the laws if the United States of America. http://www.worldcourts.com/ecowasccj/eng/decisions/2010.12.10_SERAP_v_Nigeria.htm Page 5 of 13