10 Counsel contends that plaintiff alleges the violation of the "spirit and principle" of the African Charter as well as the Revised Treaty and the Protocols of ECOWAS without citing a single text which has been violated. Based on the decision in the Moussa Leo Keita Case (supra), the Court ought to dismiss this application. 32. Counsel also argued that this Court cannot operate as an appellate court to the courts of 1v1ember States or rule on their decisions. Counsel argued that in the 111oussa Leo Keita Case (supra), this Court stated inter alia that "in this context, the Court of Justice of the Community is incompetent, "it cannot rule on the decisions of national courts ". Further, counsel stated that in the case of Alhaji Ifammani Tidjani v. Federal Republic of Nigeria and Ors (Suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/01/06, judgment delivered on 28th June, 2007) this Court stressed that the plaintiff "had the opportunity to defend himself in accordance with Nigerian Laws. Admitting this application will mean inte1jering with the jurisdiction of Nigerian courts in criminal matters 1-vithout justification". According to counsel, plaintiff had every opportunity to defend the action instituted against it by Euskalduna de Pesca in accordance with Senegalese laws and was ably represented by Malick Sall, a lawyer of plaintiff's own choice. Counsel therefore urged the Court to refrain from admitting this application as it may lead to reviewing the decisions of the Senegalese courts. 33. Moreover, counsel urged the -Court to dismiss plaintiff's application because it is full of inconsistencies and fraught with the production of false documents. First, counsel stated that in Annexure A-.15, the plaintiff claimed that it addressed a letter to Ambassador Saliou Cisse in Lagos in 2007. However, the Ambassador was not at that post in 2007. Besides, the Embassy of Senegal had already moved from Lagos to Abuja in 2007. Again, Annexure 17 contradicts Annexure 15 in the sense that it was addressed to the defenda11t's Embassy in Abuja in 2005 whilst Annexure l5 was addressed to defendant's Embassy in Lagos in 2007. Interestingly, the Embassy of Senegal in 2005 was still at Lagos. 34. Finally, counsel urged the Court to declare the application filed by plaintiff inadmissible or hold that it Jacks the jurisdiction to entertain same pursuant to Article 87 of the Court's Rules ru1d its own jurisprudence. Further, counsel urged the Court to also hold that plaintiffs application fails on tl1e merits. Com1sel also 10