20 Considering the verification done on the Judgement Register, according to Article 107 and following ... of Code of Civil Procedure: Certifj1 and attest that no mention was made in the said Register, of any Appeal against the aforementioned Ruling No. 735 I 96." 64. This document was attached to defendant's statement of defence m1d duly served on the plaintiff. During the cross-examination of plaintiffs witness, this document issue came up and the witness said it was in this court he became aware of it for the first time. He did not challenge its authenticity. It is an official record and is thus presumed to be regular and authentic until the contrary is established. It thus behoved on the plaintiff to adduce evidence in order to contest the authenticity of this docw11ent. T11e document speaks for itself. Thus in the absence of contra1y evidence, the Court accepts that plaintiff was indeed heard in those proceeding which divested it of its ownership of the vessel. 65. On this same issue, the plaintiff stated they did not know that the vessel had been divested until the defendant herein filed their defence. This again was false. The very first relief sought by the plaintiff accused the defendant of having sold their vessel. Indeed the plaintiff pleaded that they got the information the defendant had sold tl1e vessel on 23rd July, 2007. T11e reliefs and pleadings were formulated and filed before the defence was filed, so it is plainly false for the plaintiffs witness to say on oath that the first time they became aware of the sale of the vessel \Vas when the defence was filed. The plaintiff was aware they had been divested of the owners1lip of the vessel on the order of a Senegalese court in civil proceedings yet they chose not to contest it. The issue of the ownership of the vessel was conclusively determined by the Senegalese courts as far back as 1996, in an action between the appropriate parties and this court must respect it. The defendant was not a party to that action and was not a beneficiary of the award made by the court. 66. Be that as it may, granted that the plaintiff was not notified of the process that led to its vessel being awarded to some other entity, the courts in Senegal were available for plaintiff to seek redress. Learned counsel to the plaintiff rightly stated in his final address that plaintiff is entitled to have the judgment set aside "ex debito justiciae". However, it is trite learning that when a court of competent 20