21 jurisdiction makes a decision or an order, it is that court or an appellate court that can be approached to set it aside. This Court, not being an appellate court to the Senegalese court that made the order cannot be approached to set it aside. 67. This court, in appropriate cases, may reach a different conclusion from that arrived at by a domestic court, but it must be over a subject-matter where it has cognate jurisdiction with the domestic court. However, the subject-matter before the Senegalese courts was purely civil between two private companies, one of whom is not before this c o u r t . I t i s t h u s not an appropriate case where this court can give a decision that has the effect of vacating the order made by the Senegalese court. 68. Further, the judicial processes that took place in defendant's territory were between two private parties as admitted by plaintiffs witness in cross examination who added that the defendm1t was never a party to the dispute. Plaintiffs sole witness stated under cross exm11ination that the defendant became a part;' to the dispute because plaintiff had never had the opportunity of dealing directly with Euskalduna de Pesca right from the outset and was only dealing with agents of the defendant such as the Pmi Authority, the Marine Merchant and the Judiciary. 69. However, plaintiff witness admitted that he paid the air ticket of 1\1r. .I\1oriyo, an agent of Euskalduna to travel to Dakar from Spain and also held a meeting with him upon the advice of the Port Commandant This evidence provided by plaintiff witness is contradictory in terms. On the one hand he stated that he had not had any opportunity to deal directly with Euskalduna but on the other hand he admitted paying the airfare of Euskalduna's agent as well as having a meeting with him in order to negotiate the bill sent to plaintiff by Euskalduna. If plaintiff claims that the defendant became a party because it had no opportunity to deal directly with Euskaldm1a .but with .defendm1t'.s agents, that assertion is unsupported by the evidence before this Court and therefore unacceptable. Be that as it may, defendant could not become a party to a private litigation between two private companies only because the subject matter of the dispute was situated within its· territory and had to facilitate the resolution of the conflict through its agents. 70. Plaintiff also sought to establish that defendant's refusal to heed to various diplomatic overtures made defendant liable as it exhibited the intention of the 21