exercise of appellate function by this Court as being strenuously contended by the Respondent. 35. The Court therefore dismisses the Respondent’s objection to the jurisdiction of the Court as constituting itself as an appellate court. ADMISSIBILITY 36. On Non-Compliance with the Rules of Court: The Respondent raised objections on the admissibility of the application. 37. The first contention of the Respondent is in regard to the omission of an address at the seat of the Court, which was not provided in the application filed by the Applicant thereby rendering same inadmissible for being in contravention of Article 33(2) of the Rules of Court. 38. The Applicant disagrees that the omission is fatal to his case on the ground that it is the responsibility of the Registry to inform Applicant of the defect and request his compliance within thirty (30) days. He contends that he did not receive any notification from the Registry. He further argues that only a Judge can make a final decision regarding the inadmissibility or otherwise after a notification and failure to comply has been established. *** 14