2. The plaintiff and the Intervener-Applicant were both respectively represented by Lawyers namely, IVir. \Vilson 0. Esangbedo and Mr. Anthony Oseloka Ormora and they complied with· Article 28(3) of the Court's Rules of Procedure. 3. The plaintiff claims to have engaged the services of the defendant to take delivery of certain items he had imported. He c!ii,ims fhrther that the defendant did not meet his obligations. He claims also that .the defendant took an action in a Cotonou local court inBenin Republic which ordered the seizure of the goods. The plaintiff therefore complained about the violation to his fundame11tal human rights to free inovement of goods, inter alia. As pointed out earlier, the defendant never responded to the application filed · against him in this court even though there is evidence certifying that he was . se1ved. 4. The Intervener-Applicant applled to be allowed to join the proceedings on the main grourid that he isin fact the owner of the goods in question and that he entiusted the plaintiff as m1 agent with the clearing of the goods from the Po1i of Cotonou. The Intervener requires damages for the losses he has incurred. ArgIDJJ_lliint:;: of parties 5. Counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Esangbedo said that he filed the case under the Court's Protocol of 1991. He made reference to the fact that a Supple1nentary Protocol h;rn amended Article 9 of the 1991 Protocol. The Supplementary Protocol is dated 19 January 2005. According to Counsel, 2 Downloaded from worldcourts.com. Use is subject to terms and conditions. See worldcourts.com/terms.htm