2. The plaintiff and the Intervener-Applicant were both respectively represented by Lawyers namely, Mr. Wilson 0. Esangbedo and Mr. Anthony Oseloka Onuora and they complied with Article 28(3) of the Court's Rules of Procedure. Summary of the facts 3. The plaintiff claims to have engaged the services of the defendant to take delive1y of certain items he had imported. He claims further that the defendant did not 111eet his obligations. He claims also that the defendant took an action in a Cotonou local court in Benin Republic which ordered the seizure of the goods. The plaintiff therefore con1plained about the violation to his fundan1ental human rights to free movement 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 served. 4. The Intervener-Applicant applied to be allowed to join the proceedings on the main ground that he is in fact the owner of the goods in question and that he enh11sted the plaintiff as an agent with the clearing of the goods from the Port of Cotonou. The Intervener requires damages for the losses he has incurred. Arguments 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 Supplementmy Protocol has amended Article 9 of the 1991 Protocol. The Supplementary Protocol is dated 19 January 2005. According to Counsel, Articles 9 and 10 of the Supplementmy Protocol have given access to the Court to individuals in as far as the issue of their fundamental Human Rights is concen1ed. Counsel conceded that his action was filed before the adoption of the Supplementary Protocol and posed 2 Downloaded from worldcourts.com. Use is subject to terms and conditions. See worldcourts.com/terms.htm