may be contradictory and inconsistent therefore the aid of the rule will apply. In Mitchell v. Torup (1786) Park 227 at 233 Parker CB said: "in expounding Acts of Parliament where words are expressed, plain and clear, the words ought to be understood according to their genuine and natural signification and import, unless by such exposition a contradiction or inconsistency would arise in the Act by reason of some subsequent clause, from whence it might be inferred that the intent of the Parliament was otherwise." 39. The Learned counsel to the Applicant in this case made it clear that the provision of Article 9 (3) was clear and unambiguous which was conceded by Learned Counsel to the Respondent. However, the contention of the Applicant, when he placed premium on the word 'May' was that the word in its literal and natural sense is directory and not mandatory. 40. His further contention that where the Applicant is suing his Member State, to give the words their natural connotation would produce a situation where the Member State is the Plaintiff and the Defendant. 41. He continued that such a situation would not be legally possible. He then called for the aid of the principles of equity in Article 9 (1) of the Protocol. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Respondent urged the Court not to resort to redrafting of the provision that is clear that only Member States are parties before the Court by the provision of Article 9(3) of the Protocol. 42. In this regard, reference was made to Article 34 × 1. Only states may be parties in cases before the Court. 2. The Court, subject to and in conformity with its Rules, may request of public international organizations information relevant to cases before it, and shall receive such information presented by such organizations on their own initiative. 3. Whenever the construction of the constituent instrument of a public international organization or of an international convention adopted thereunder is in question in a case before the Court, the Registrar shall so notify the public international organization concerned and shall communicate to it copies of all the written proceedings. of the Statute of the International Court of Justice wherein it specified that "Only States may be parties in cases before the Court."For him, where in Article 9(3) it is not so stated, such provision may not be read into the provision of the Article in question, as the Applicants Counsel tried to do in this case. 43. The Applicant also referred to Article 9(1) of the Protocol to ensure the Respondent is not shut out before this Court, when he has a substantial claim against the Respondent. 44. Learned Counsel made a point on the application of the principles of equity to the case. What is the import of Article 9(1) of the Protocol in respect of the application of the principles of equity to aid a situation that is not within the perimeters of the provision of Article 9(3) of the Protocol? 45. Article 9(1) of the Protocol states: "I. The Court shall ensure the observance of law and of the principles of equity in the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Treaty." 46. It is trite law that, Equity aids the vigilant and follows the law and acts as shield not a sword. In Black's Law Dictionary Seventh Edition, the word 'equity' is defined thus: "1. Fairness; impartiality; evenhanded dealing....." 2. The body of principles constituting what is fair and right; natural law; 3. The recourse to principles of justice to correct or supplement the law as applied to particular circumstances. The judge decided the case by equity because the statute did not fully address the issue..." Findings of the Court 47. By the question put to this Court, the Respondent seeks for an Order to strike out the suit instituted by the Applicant on the grounds that the suit having been filed by a national of the Federal Republic of Nigeria against the Federal Republic of Nigeria as a Community citizen in pursuant to Article 9(3) of the Protocol of the Court, that requires only a Member State to institute action on behalf of its nationals, gave course for this proceedings and the arguments as to whether the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit. 48. The said Article states that "A Member State may, on behalf of its nationals, institute proceedings against another Member State or institution of the Community..." Are these words ambiguous or obtuse as to warrant the resort to the rules of interpretation? 49. The use of the word 'May' connotes an elective/permissive stance that would enjoin the State to exercise its discretion either to act on behalf of the nationals or not. As it was put in the case of Becke v. Smith, Parke B (as he then was) said; "it is a very useful rule, in the construction of a statute, to 5