a) Irregularity as to the form of the Application non- provision of address at the seat of the Court 37. It is the contention of the Respondent that the Application did not include an address of the Applicants at the seat of the Court contrary to the conditions laid down in Article 33 of the Rules of Court. They state that according to the said Article, the Chief Registrar must set a deadline for the Applicants to regularise their Application, otherwise their application will be declared inadmissible. 38. The Respondent concludes that in the absence of regularization of their Application within the required time limit, it should be declared inadmissible for failure to observe the formal conditions laid down by Article 33 of the Rules of Court. 39. The Applicants in their response to the Respondent’s objection as to form stated that the Application fulfilled its purpose given that the Respondent received same and filed a statement of defense within the time limit. That their objection in this regard is therefore not justified. ***** 40. The Court notes that the Preliminary Objection of the Respondent hinges on Article 33 of the Rules of Court. However, only sub-sections (1), (2), and (6) of the said Article is relevant. The said sub-Articles are reproduced as follows: 1. “An application of the kind referred to in Article 11 of the Protocol shall state: (a-e)... 13