to be observed, promoted, protected and enjoyed and whether the alleged violations was committed by a member state of the community." The Applicant states that its right to property and right to fair hearing has been violated and relied on Articles 7 and 14 of the African Charter. The Respondent on the other hand contends that the Applicant’s application does not indicate any characteristic violation of human rights. Article 7 and 14 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights guarantees the right to be heard and the right to property respectively. Article 7 of the African Charter provides that “Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard….” The Court has indicated a reluctance to entertain an action of rights abuse which will require its consideration of matters not within its competence and has also refused to assume jurisdiction where the Applicant has not defined the exact violation alleged or specified the particular right allegedly violated. See Mousa Leo Keita (2004 CCJELR) In AMOUZOU HENRI & ORS V. REPUBLIC OF COTE D’IVOIRE (2009) CCJELR pg297 para 57-58, the Court stressed that the right to fair hearing is guaranteed by Articles 10 of the UDHR, Article 7 of the ACHPR, and Article 14 of the ICCPR. That the UDHR and the ACHPR are legal instruments that all ECOWAS Member States, including the Defendants are signatories. At the community level, their eminent importance has been underlined, notably by the affirmation from member states which vowed to expressly respect them The Applicant states that it filed a suit against the Respondent at their national court and the court heard the matter and delivered its judgment on the 20th of April 2005, in its favor and awarded damages against the Respondent. That the Respondent failed to pay to the Applicant the judgment debt of $15,900,000.00 which constitutes the property before this court in the instant application. The Respondent has however not denied the existence of the said judgment. In the instant case, it is clear that the Applicant was heard by a competent national Court. It is therefore difficult to reconcile the Applicant’s claim of not being heard whereas it is admitted in his application that the national court heard and delivered judgment in its favor. It is also clear that the Applicant has misconceived the provisions of Article 7, ACHPR, 10 UDHR as it relates to fair hearing. This is owing to the fact that the 7