ECW/CCJ/JUD/04/10 Nigeria & 3 Others v. Djot Bayi Talbia & 14 Others In the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Holden at Abuja, Nigeria On Thursday, the 3rd day of June, 2010 before their Lordships Hon. Justice Awa D. Nana - President Hon. Justice Hansine n. Donli - Member Hon. Justice Anthony a. Benin - Member Assisted by Tony Anene-Maidoh - Chief Registrar Between: 1. Federal Republic of Nigeria - Applicant 2. Attorney-General of the Federation - Applicant 3. Comptroller General of Police - Applicant 4. Inspector General of Police - Applicant And1. Djot Bayi and 14 Others - Respondents 2. Chief of Naval Staff - Respondent Judgment 1. The applicants herein, being dissatisfied by a judgment of this Court, (ECW/CCJ/JUG/07/09) brought the instant application for its revision pursuant to Article 25 of the Protocol on the Court of Justice (A/P1/7/91). The application for revision of the judgment was predicated on two grounds, namely: a. Oral proceeding was not conducted at the trial. b. Evidence was not adduced by the respondents to ground the award of damages. 2. The applicants stated that these facts are new and decisive and therefore warrant a review of the judgment delivered by this Court. They argued that under Article 13 of the Court's Protocol (A/P1/7/91) as amended by Article 14 [sic] * of the Supplementary Protocol of the Court (A/SP.1/01/05), proceedings shall be of two parts: written and oral. They continued that Article 40 of the Rules of the Court also lends credence to the fact that the procedure before the Court shall also include an oral part except in special circumstances. Applicants contended that the present case does not fall within the exceptions permitted under Article 40 of the Court's Rules where the Court can dispense with the oral part of the procedure. They concluded that the Court should make an order setting aside the said judgment so that oral proceedings might be conducted in the matter. 3. Counsel for the applicants also submitted that no evidence was led by the respondents (plaintiffs) in the substantive case to justify the award of damages in their favour. Counsel contended that the award of damages must be based on evidence and principles of law and not on the estimation of the Court and that 1

Select target paragraph3