18 also refused to give the undertaking plaintiff was requesting for. Plaintiff refused to pay the amount and decided to explore diplomatic channels in resolving the dispute. 58. The third and final judicial proceeding is the one that divested plaintiff of its ownership of the vessel. Plaintiff says it was not approached by the court to enable it defend its interest before judgment was given divesting it of its ownership of the vessel and did not know anything about the proceedings until the defence filed by defendant herein in this action revealed that a court revisited the earlier decision of the Marine Merchant and awarded same to some other entity. 59. It is important to carefully appraise the role of the defendant in the judicial proceedings that took place in order to dete1mine whetl1er she is liable to the plaintiff for its vessel or not. It is not in dispute that defendant assured plaintiff that she would release its vessel to it after paying he CFA 2.5 Million port charges t11at had accrued from plaintiffs vessel docking at her port. When plaintiff made the said payment, defendant informed it of the fact that Euskalduna de Pesca that towed the vessel to her port had requested to be paid for the costs it incurred in towing plaintiffs vessel. It is noteworthy that plaintiff agreed to pay Euskalduna de Pesca for its services and paid the airfare of its representative, Mr. Moriyo to travel to Dakar from Spain for negotiation after plaintiff had been billed CFA 40 Million by Euskalduna de Pesca. Thus, plaintiff acknowledged in principle that it owed Euskalduna de Pesca, the only issue was the quantum. 60. The parties, Euskalduna de Pesca and the plaintiff, could not agree on the amount of money to be paid to the former. Plaintiffs sole witness in tl1e proceedings admitted in cross examination that the defendant was not responsible for the parties' inability to arrive at a compromise on the quantum. Plaintiff therefore did not make the payment and subsequently left Dakar. Euskalduna then approached a Senegalese court and asked that the vessel be awarded to it in order to enable it defray the costs it incurred in towing the vessel to defendant 's port. The court obliged and awarded the vessel to Euskalduna. However, upon an appeal by the plaintiff that decision was reversed. Plaintiff invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal of the Marine :Merchant, wherein plaintiff was asked to pay CFA 30.5 Million in order to secure the release of its vessel. 18