, 2. The plaintiff and the Intervener-Applicant were both respectively represented by Lawyers namely, lVIr. 1Nilson 0. Esangbedo and lvfr, Anthony Oseloka Onuora 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 claims fi.uther that the defendm1t 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 fundamental human rights to free inovement of goods, inte~ ;lia. As ~ __ -----·-----·-·--------- ,,,_-~. ---- - - pointed out earlier, the defendant never responded to the application filed ·against him in this court even though the.re is evidence certifying that he was _ served, 4. The Intervener~Applicant applied to be allowed to join the proceedings on the main grourid that he is in fact the owner of the goods in question imd that _he ent1usted the plaintiff as ,an agent with the clearingrofthe goods from the Port of Cotonou. The Intervener requires damages for the losses he has incurred. AlJ?;Mllli:nfa 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 ---Supplementary Protocol is dated 19 Jm1uary 2_9~05. .,1: '.:-,.,---_.,;; Supplemto£tary Protocol h{lS amended Article 9 of the 1991 Protocol. The ...,,,_.. _,,.,,~----"- - - - · - - - ~ - ·-- ------ According to Counsel, ~,:.~~--------- 2 Downloaded from worldcourts.com. Use is subject to terms and conditions. See worldcourts.com/terms.htm