“…it is not a court of appeal or of cassation of the decisions of the national courts, and such decisions cannot hinder its intervention when it comes to facts within its jurisdiction, namely a violation of a fundamental right. Only the previous referral to another international court, with like jurisdiction, can frustrate its regular referral. However, although it is not inclined to examine national judicial decisions, its jurisdiction must not be interpreted that in an absolute manner.” 30. This position has been reiterated in several jurisprudence of the Court, but has been succinctly put in the case of OCEAN KING NIGERIA LTD V. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL ECW/CCJ/JUD/07/11-REV @ page 11, the Court held that “…though it has jurisdiction over human rights violation that occur in Member States of ECOWAS, it does not have the jurisdiction to act as appellate courts of the domestic courts of Member States. Thus, when human rights applications are brought before the Court, it will inquire into the human rights allegations but will resist any invitation to act as an appellate court to the domestic courts of Member States as it clearly does not have that jurisdiction.” 31. See also the case of HIS LORDSHIP JUSTICE PAUL UUTER DERRY & 2 ORS v. THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA JUDGMENT NO ECW/CCJ/JUD/17/19 @ Pg. 28 the court reiterated that it is not an appellate court and will only admit cases from national courts where human rights violations were alleged in the course of the proceedings. 32. This issue was finally put to rest when the court held that; “… It has severally drawn a distinction between its lack of jurisdiction to examine the decisions of national courts and its jurisdiction to hear cases of human rights abuses arising therefrom. The Court has consistently held that it cannot sit on appeal over decisions of national Courts of Member States.” See FINANCE INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (FIDC) V. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/23/18 @ pg 11. This exercise of the Court’s mandate is not to pronounce on the propriety or otherwise of the substance of the decision rendered by the Member State but to examine the processes leading to the decision with the view to finding whether any protected substantive or procedural rights of the Applicant were violated. Such a mandate should not be construed either in form or substance as amounting to exercise of appellate function by this Court as being strenuously contended by the Respondent 10