18. A first transit session of the Court on this Case was held at Bamako on 2 October 2006. On
preliminary grounds, the issue of competence of the Court was put forth by the State Department
for Disputes, which asked for a written Reply from the Applicant. The latter applied for adjournment
for that purpose. The Case was thus adjourned to 4 October for a Rejoinder from the Applicant,
who on that date, was represented by a lawyer.
19. From the Application instituting proceedings, founded on the remedying of wrongs caused him
by the State of Mali, the resultant Rejoinder opted for the violation of Human Rights which had
allegedly been committed by the State of Mali against the Applicant.
Appreciation of the Arguments of the Parties
20. In his Application instituting proceedings, Moussa Léo Kéita does not found his claims on a
precise text of law nor on the positive law of the Community. He simply invoked the wrongs
caused him by the State he had loyally served in the course of his whole active life. He deemed
himself victim of an injustice caused him by the said State and asked for reparation.
21. The Reply of the State of Mali sets forth, for the first time, issues of law in that it raises the
question of incompetence of the Court to adjudicate on the dispute submitted before it, and on the
point that, it refuses to recognise Moussa Léo Kéita as being qualified to appear before the
Community Court.
22. The said Rejoinder of the Applicant (who was represented by a lawyer during the first hearing
of the Court) shifted the terrain of the legal debate to that of violation of Human Rights as provided
for in Articles 9 and 10 [sic] of the 2005 amended Protocol.
A) As to the Competence of the Court of Justice of ECOWAS
23. The Application instituting proceedings does not talk about the personal or material
competence of the Court. Only the Reply, the Rejoinder, and the Reply to the Rejoinder do
mention it. Hence, one needs to ask whether the Court of Justice of ECOWAS can adjudicate
upon the Application thus filed, or else, whether it has to take account of the supplementary
Application deposited at the hearing of the 4 October 2006 in the form of a Rejoinder from the
Applicant.
24. The reply to this question can be found in Article 37 of the Rules of the Court of Justice, which
provides as follows:
a) In reply to a rejoinder a party may offer further evidence. The party must, however, give reasons
for the delay in offering it.
b) No new plea in law may be introduced in the course of proceedings unless it is based on
matters of law or of fact which come to light in the course of the procedure.
25. The Defendant's Reply and his further Reply to the Applicant's Rejoinder conclude upon the
inadmissibility of Moussa Léo Kéita's appeal, as drawn from the incompetence of the Court, within
the meaning of Articles 9 and 10 [sic] of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol, which provide as
follows:
New Article 9: Jurisdiction of the Court
1. The Court has competence to adjudicate on any dispute relating to the following:
a) the interpretation and application of the Treaty, Conventions, and Protocols of the
Community;
b) the interpretation and application of the regulations, directives, decisions and other
subsidiary legal instruments adopted by ECOWAS;