Supplementary Protocol exists for a particular purpose i.e. it covers jurisdiction with regard to actions for damages instituted against or occasioned by acts or omissions of Community Institutions or official(s). In interpreting similar provision, the European Court of Justice in case No 5/71 in action for damages arising from acts of an Institution of the European Community (as it was then called) held that the object of this provision is merely to compensate a party for damages arising from action or omission of a Community institution or its official(s) and nothing more. Accordingly, in so far as Article 9 (1) g) gives the Court jurisdiction over actions for damages arising from acts or omissions of Community Institution(s) and their officials, the present action not being against such parties cannot be maintained under this Article. However, the mere fact that an action was brought under a wrong section of a law does not deprive it of any merit, if there is another provision under the law under which it can be accommodated. This is a Court of Justice not one of technicalities. In this direction, it needs to be noted that the Plaintiffs also relied on Article 9(4) of the Supplementary Protocol which posits the human rights jurisdiction of the Court. This Court has held in a plethora of cases that it has jurisdiction to entertain any case of alleged violation of human rights which occurred in member States, 17