between the Applicant and Respondent which culminated into the purported judgment of the 16th of April 2005, by the Circuit Court wherein a default judgment was entered in the sum of US$15,900,000.00 in favor of the Applicants. The Respondent states that the whole process upon which the Circuit Court delivered its judgment was characterized by fraud and done without regard to due process. That the said Applicant had vide an agreement with the Respondent relinquished their rights, interest and title in the sale agreement of 4th February 2003 for the 800,000.00 metric tons of iron ore to LIMINCO the Respondent in this matter, wherein it was agreed that the Applicants would be paid the sum of USD 450,000.00. That the agreement between both parties stipulates arbitration as the dispute resolution mechanism of which both parties are obligated to submit to. That they were not served with any originating process as it relates to the matter and were not given hearing notice for the date in which judgment was to be delivered and there was no lawyer appointed to take the judgment on behalf of LIMINCO which the Respondent states amounts to a violation of their right to be heard and their right to appeal and constitutes an abuse of due process. The Respondent states that the matter was irregularly tried. The Respondent states that a representative of the Applicant at the Supreme Court in Liberia admitted that the Applicant had completely sold its interest in FIDC to LIMINCO. That the Supreme Court in Liberia on the 17th of February, 2017, delivered its judgment setting aside the decision of the Circuit Court. The Respondents thus raise their preliminary objection on the following grounds:  That the Applicant lacks the legal capacity to institute the suit having no evidence of incorporation;  That the Applicant’s action is statute barred pursuant to Article 9 (3) of the Supplementary Protocol of this Court;  That based on the Admission of the Applicant before the Supreme Court of Liberia, the principle of estoppel lies against the Applicant from enforcing their fraudulent Judgment;  That the action is now devoid of purpose based on the admission before the Court by virtue of Article 88(2) of the Rules of this Court;  That the initial judgment be rendered void for want of due process, the Respondents not afforded the opportunity to appeal the judgment;  That the application be declared inadmissible as it is not indicative of a characteristic of violation of human rights; 4