again says that “the ban, a singular event done in isolation and done without due recourse to the Cabinet, which is the final decision making body of the Government of the Republic of Sierra Leone, was quickly reversed”. It went further to say after reversing the ban, it set up alternative schools for those who had become pregnant. From the facts as presented by the parties in their respective application and defence, it is clear and without doubt that there was a publication from a top government official that intended to stop pregnant adolescent girls from attending school. This fact was not denied by the Respondent. It is also factually established that the statement was an isolated case by the individual top official. This also was not controverted by the Applicant. In fact, the Applicant in paragraph 5.7 of its application stated thus: “Attempts were made to create alternative schools for some girls. However the schools established in line with this system were not as accessible as mainstream “regular” schools and additionally, did not offer the same quality of education as that taught at mainstream schools. The alternative schools only operated three days a week and only made provision for the study of four core subjects- Maths, English language, Integrated Science and Social Studies; essentially offering “limited” education”. The Applicant also in paragraph 6.1 of its Application further avers in part that: “Following their pregnancies, girls are allowed to return to school, however, as a result of the stigma attached to teenage pregnancies many of the girls’ families became unwilling to support the pregnant girls’ cost of education”. The Law of State Responsibility is the branch of Public International Law that regulates the determination of the legal liability of a state for internationally v