concerning interpretation and application of the regulation, directives, decisions and other subsidiary instruments adopted by ECOWAS. 38.They also argue that the action does not seek to checkmate the legality of any regulations, directives, decision and other subsidiary legal instruments adopted by ECOWAS and does not envisage any failure by a Member State to honour their obligation under any treaty, conventions and protocols, regulations, directives or decision of ECOWAS. Nor is it an action against any Community institution; as such the action of the plaintiff is not one that enjoys jurisprudential cognizance by virtue of Article 9[1]-[8]. 39.They contend that none of the appropriate powers of the Court enumerated above is implicated in the Application, rather the Applicants are seeking this Honourable Court to sit on appeal against the decision of the Nigerian domestic courts, a relief that the Court in a plethora of its cases has declined. In essence the Applicants are seeking an order of the Court to set aside the decision of the Nigerian domestic court wherein they were sentenced to death. 40.They further argue that the statutes of this Honourable Court have not provided for any of the reliefs sought by the Applicants, as such this Honourable Court is bereft of jurisdiction to hear and entertain same. Citing the Court in PETER DAVID V. AMBASSADOR RALP UWECHUE (2010) CCJELER 213. They conclude that the Court is an international court established by a treaty and by its own nature; it should primarily deal with disputes of international character. 14