both occasions failed to react to the letters. The Plaintiff is of the view that the deliberate failure and or refusal to appoint an Arbitrator by the Defendant amounted to waiver of its right to resort to any arbitral proceeding as a precondition for the institution of the present action. The Defendant cannot therefore approbate and reprobate at the same time. Also in respect of the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff has already sued and obtained judgment against the Defendant at the Commercial Court in Sierra Leone; rendering the present suit as an appeal, the Plaintiff responded that the judgment was inconclusive since no damages was awarded in its favour. So there is no judgment to enforce. In view of the above responses, the Plaintiff maintains that the Honourable Court is clothed with jurisdiction to entertain this suit under Article 10 of the 1991 Protocol of the Court as amended by the Supplementary Protocol of 2005. The Plaintiff states that the failure of the Defendant to provide an effective remedy for the violation of the rights of the Plaintiff has necessitated the Plaintiff’s resort to this Court. On the issue of the present action being Statute barred, the Plaintiff argues that the breach that arose from the Concession Agreement (Annexure “A”) which has given rise to the cause of action in this suit is continuous in nature. The Plaintiff states that the injury suffered and complained of by the Plaintiff is continuous and to that extent, this Court has unfettered jurisdiction to entertain and determine the suit. The Plaintiff further argues that the Defendant has repeatedly suspended the export of timber from Sierra Leone contrary to the terms of Annexure “A”. The suspension was announced in 2008, 2013 and 2018 thereby putting on hold their contract with the Defendant. The Plaintiff again says that it has not been allowed 13