UO
ll-l rHE ilIATTE*
Dts I Qo[?
e8 t ttl 2 o t 1
L
oD4r+ t+(
*
**#5
oF sEBA$TrEilr GERMATN AJAVON v. REFUBLTC
oF BEN|N
AFPLICATTS!'| NO 01 at20,l r
JUDGEIIIIENT {REpARATI6Ns} oF zB NovEMBEnE
z01s
aD414Q3)B{
DISSENTING OFINION BY JUBGE GERARD NIYUNGEKO
1" I cnnctlr with the deeisisns of the
court on reparations in favour of the Appticant, excepf
for the arnsunt of rl"rirty Billion (30 000 000 000)
cFA Francs granted as reparation sf the
pre.iudice for the loss of investment
opportunity in the oil sector o* the one hand
{paragraph iii'S af the operative part), and an the other, in regard to
the amount of rhree
Billion (3 000 000 000) cFA Francs granted as reparation
for moral prejudice suff*red by
the Applicant (paragraph iv.3 of the operative part).
ln my opinion, these amounts are
excessive and cannot be objectively justifled"
l' Reparation of prejudice relating to the toss of investment oppofiunity
in the oil
sector
2. ]t emerges from the ease file, that in 1016, the Appricant,* company, comrnon
sA,
reached wrth Philia Group lfd, within the framerrrrork af a partnership,
a confidentiality
agreement to cover all confidential informatian exchanged between
the two structures as
regards oil commercialization projecte, and then a lvlemorandum of Understand;ng
{MOU}
for the establishment cf a roadmap to carry out all the activities related
to the two projects
through a joint venture platfornn fparagraph 46 of the Judgement].
3' tt further emerges frorn the case file that as a nesult of criminal proceedings iniliated
against the Applicant by the Respondent state in the matter of suspected
drug trafficking,
Phi{ia Graup Lfd announced the suspensiol':, with irnmedlate effect,
of all ongoing
negotiations or commercial discussions with the Applicant in reiation to
these projects
[paragraphs 51 and 52 of the Judgement].
4. As the Court noted, there is no doubt that the Applicant suffered a loss in business
opportunities [paragraphs 54 and 55 of the JudgementJ. Furthermore, there is no
doubt
that lhe Applicant is entitled to reparation In ihis regard [paragraph 59 of the Judgemenu.
5, The Applicant claims pecuniary reparation of One Hundred and Fifty Billion (150
000
000 000) CFA Francs {paragraph 60 sf the Judgement}. However, as ws have noted, the
Court granted hirn a lur*p sum *f Thirty Biltion {3CI 000 000 000} CFA Francs. To justify
its decision, the Court stated that it based il, inter alia, on the following; the amounts
1