party that complains of a denial of the right to fair hearing which is a fundamental right open to any party who is affected by a tribunal’s decision since that right is not dependent on human rights, and for that reason a party who has such a complaint of denial of fair hearing should not be thrown out of a Court without first being heard. Unfortunately, none of the reliefs being sought by the Plaintiff relates to the issue of fair hearing. The Court has equally evaluated two decisions of this Court cited by the Plaintiff in support of its case; OBIOMA C.O OGUKWE v. REPUBLIC OF GHANA ECW/CCJ/APP/12/14 and ABIA AZALI AND ANOR. V. REPUBLIC OF BENIN ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/15. In these case, the ratio decidendi has to do with the negligence of the member states concerned in exercising due diligence over non state actors. In the present case, the acts complained of by the Plaintiff are directly against the Defendant as a contractual party. To this extent these cases are hereby distinguished. This Court, minded by the plethora of decisions on the incompetency of a corporate body to institute an action for violation of humans rights as espoused above has come to the conclusion that, the Plaintiff in the instant case being a corporate entity, lacks the capacity to bring this suit and the Court is bereft of competence to entertain same; and as such, this case is rendered inadmissible. It is the law that if an action fails on a plea of lack of capacity, the court does not proceed to determine the merits of the case irrespective of the evidence. However, since the facts relied on by the Defendant is contained in the Affidavit in Support of the Preliminary Objection which is being challenged by the Plaintiff, the Court will briefly consider the argument of the Plaintiff in respect of the propriety 18