000245 17. The European Court of Human Rights further noted that "the piercing of the "corporate veil" or the disregarding of a company's legal personality will be justified only in exceptional circumstances."T 18. Based on the above cited passages we are of the opinion that one of the reasons why the Applicant's identity was said to be the same as that of his company in this case is because the corporate veil had been lifted and as a result of this, the rights and obligations which were attributed to the company became the rights and obligations for the Applicant, which in turn meant that the two have the same identity. These are the same observations that were made by the lnter-American Court on Human Rights and the European Court on Human Rights in the above mentioned passages. lt is therefore our opinion that the above mentioned views should have been adopted and explicitly stated in the judgment of the majority. 19. One last thing we would like to make emphasis on regarding A(icle 56(7) of the Charter is the fact that the reason why the corporate veil was lifted and the identity of the Applicant and his company was considered the same in the national level is because it was noted in the judgment (in the Applicants prayers) that the Applicant holds ninety five percent (95%) of the company and is the President, Chief Executive Officer, founder and majority shareholder of AGRILAND.8 This is to say that the company's losses are his losses and the company's gains are also his gains. We feel that the judgment should have emphasised this point and clarified it. Ben KIOKO, Vice-President Angelo V. MATUSSE- Judge gT tULl ll{ 4 ARUSHA TAIiZA 0t 0,r5 0[ 6 I Agrotexim and Othersv. Greece 14807/89, (1996) EHRR 250, [1995] ECHR 42, para. 66. 8Application No. 038/2016. Judgment ot 2210312018, Jean-Claude Roger Gombeft v. Republic of COte 1 d lvoirc, paa.15(iii) and para. 48. 5