processes set out in the Courfs Rules of Procedure in invoking the Court's competence. 24. I\1r. Onuora rightly set out the distinction between substantive and procedural lavls when he said that (,.as a general rule, laws which fix duties, establish rights and responsibilities among and for persons natural or otherw'ise are substantive laws in character while those which merely prescribe the manner in which such rights and responsibilities may be exercised and enforced in a Court are proc~dural law." 25. Thus a distinction is to be drawn between the Protocol that establishes the Court and defines its competence which is substantive and the Rules of Procedure which is procedural. , .Qlliicernrng, the Mi!_HcatioJt _for volm@i·y intervention · 26. On 30 November 2004 J.L Alinnm\ represented by his Counsel, filed an application to be allowed to intervene in the instant case. The.ground for the application· was that he is the owner of the seized goods. The party was heard on 8 February 2005 in support of his application. The plaintiff's Cou_nsel argued that the application was filed out of time in vi<;;W of the ' . Courf s Rules. 27. Article 13(6) of the Court's Rules stipulates that 'Notice shall be given in the Official Jounml of the Community of the date of registration of an application initiating proceedings ......... , 28. And Article 89(1) of the Rules of Court requires an application for intervention to be made withhi six weeks from th<:'- date of publication of the notice refetTed to in Article 13(6). 29. The plaintiff's application was filed on 19 April 2004 and was published in the IVIay 2004. edition of the Official Journal. It is thus clear that the 8 Downloaded from worldcourts.com. Use is subject to terms and conditions. See worldcourts.com/terms.htm