interlocutory application and the principle of master/servant relationship. He relied on the Ghanaian the Supreme General of Police 2000 2 HRLRA Court case of New Patriotic Party v. Inspector P 1 at 63 and submitted that ECOWAS and its organs owe a duty to ensure that the rights of its citizens are not violated, and that any case alleging violation of rights is very serious issue. The Court appreciated his contributions. 70. In respect of master and servant relationship, he submitted that staff of an organisation created by law are no longer regarded as servant and relied on Wilson v. AG Bendel State (1985) INWLR Pt 4 p 572 and Dr Banjo vs University of Ibadan (1977) Oyo State HC Report page 1 at 27, per Eso CJ; Constitutional Rights Project v. President of Federal Republic of Nigeria vol. 1 N.P.I.LR 21. 71. In further support of the application for striking out, learned counsel relied on Article 65(a) to maintain the stance that the plaintiff should have appealed against the decision of the 1st defendant dismissing her from ECOWAS before seeking relief. Learned counsel to the defendants further submitted that “if the court holds that the plaintiff should have appealed to the 1st defendant, then we submit that the action is statute barred.” 72. This submission calls for the consideration of Article 65(a) in its entirety to see if at this stage the matter can be resolved in favour of the defendants. Article 65 (a) of the Staff Regulations states: “Right of Appeal. Article 65: Procedure for Appeal. (a) Any member of staff who wishes to appeal against sanctions imposed on him must first write a letter to the Executive Secretary, requesting a review of his case. The letter shall be sent by registered mail within thirty days of receiving notification of decision where the staff member's duty station is outside the headquarters. If the Executive Secretary maintains the decision or if the staff member receives no response 17