the relief both for the motion and the main application allegation of violation of human fights that which has an is continuing question of negligence cannot apply under limitation and the of action under Article 9(3) of the Protocol as amended. 44. This Court takes the justifiable pendency of an adjournment stance that the amendment during the for judgment in a case would be in order and since the parties in this ease have been heard in the matter with all the essentials of the rules on fair hearing in Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights duly observed, the issues and '. submissions should be determined in the main judgment herewith. The observations in the case of Azazi v, Adhekegba, supra, are not on all fours with the present situation in this case. So also the further reliance on the doctrine of laches as observed in the case of Chukwu v. Amadi, supra. We find that principle inapplicable and that no unreasonable delay or negligence as submitted by Counsel to the defendant. 45. Having shown that the motion filed and argued by the Applicant was in order and that the Court met the requirements of Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights in that the parties were given fair hearing and the defendant had opportunity to join issues with the plaintiff, the next point is the question of the annexures attached to the said motion which are material to the ease. 46. As earlier stated herein that Article 15 of the Protocol permits such admission of documentary evidence, the fact that same were annexed to an affid;wil ;lIlne4l~\.'\.cre....se(;()ndi.l.p consideruuo». and that the It is well stated evidence are admitted without ~vid(~lll:t'-reqni:T'e position of law that where secondary objection or with the consent of the parties or have been used by the adverse party, or relevant in material particular, the Court would rightly rely upon them for its decision. Some 16