on non-compliance with the requirements of admissibility enshrined in the Charter and the Rules. A. Objections relating to some preliminary procedures. 70. The Respondent raised two objections under this head, namely that the Application is still pending before the Commission and that the Court did not undertake a preliminary examination of its admissibility in accordance with Rule 39 of it Rules. i. Objection based on the contention that the Application is pending before the Commission Respondent's Objection 71. The Respondent contends that there are pending proceedings before the Commission between the Ogieks and the Respondent on the same facts and issues as those in the present Application. The Respondent maintains that the Application before the Court is seeking substantive orders whereas the same case is before the Commission, and therefore the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked by the Applicant. Applicant's Submission 72. The Applicant argues that the Court's jurisdiction was properly invoked and avers that the case was referred to the Court by the Commission pursuant to Article 5(1) (a) of the Protocol, Rule 33(1) (a) of the Rules and Rule 118(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission. Accord ing to the Applicant, having seised the Court, it can no longer be argued that the matter is pending before the Commission . I ,L"; 20