also favourably admitted the case, and, consequently, ordered the continuation of proceedings. 4. At the Court hearing of 5 July 2012, on the merit of the case, Counsel to Federal Republic of Nigeria brought to the attention of the Court that Lawyer to Applicant informed him of the existence of a Judgment given by the Federal High Court, Abuja (a Nigerian Court), in favour of Applicant. Upon passionate plea from Counsel to Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Court ordered the production of the said Judgment before any further pleading could be made on the merit of the case. 5. Thus, on 11 July 2012, the Defendant produced before the Court, the Order given by the Federal High Court, Abuja, on a case earlier filed by Mrs. Sa’adatu Umar against the Nigerian Police Authorities. Applicant was notified of the said Order on 1st November 2012. 6. At the Court hearing of 1st November 2012, which was mainly for taking pleas, on the production of the said exhibit, and on the merit of the case, Counsel to Applicant, who had been duly notified, failed to appear, but rather, was represented by a colleague. LEGAL ANALYSIS BY THE COURT 7. The Court observes that the issue of the existence of the Order given by the Federal High Court, Abuja (a Nigerian Court) was not raised until the interim ruling that it gave on 12 June 2012, and when both parties were invited to enter pleas on the merit of the case. This fact was thus raised during the proceedings, and Counsel to Federal Republic of Nigeria now relies on the said Order, to raise an objection as to admissibility of the Application brought by Mrs. Sa’adatu Umar. 3