3. The Applicant/Plaintiff maintains that at the time he was clearing the 1,785 packets at the Seme-Krake border with Nigeria, the goods and its trailer were seized by the gendarmes and customs officers of Benin, with bailiffs from the Court of First Instance of Cotonou. 4. He asserts that the authorities of the Benin security system did not offer him any helping hand in the operation of mounting search for Mr. Rachad Laleye, when he lodged a complaint against the latter, for a criminal act. This compelled him (the Applicant/Plaintiff) to send his case before the Embassy of Nigeria in Cotonou, but received no assistance from the said Embassy. 5. That it was in such condition, that, the following Order of seizure for protection-of-security was issued by the Cotonou Court of First instance, on the basis of a false declaration made during the process of the said clearing which led Mr. Rachad Laleye to seize his goods. 6. He maintains that since he was not given a hearing by the judicial institutions of Benin, before the signing of the Order and he alleged that he was denied the right to equal protection by the law, as guaranteed by Articles 2 and 3 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. 7. He equally asserts that the 1st and 2nd Defendants have violated the provisions of Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' and Rights relating to the right to property, because his trailer, which had not been implicated in the Order of seizure for protection-of-security, was not handed over to him and that it is, allegedly, still being detained by them. It was on the basis of these facts that Chief Frank lodged his case in this Court, seeking the following declaration: (1) That the Defendant, by his false declaration before the Benin Court of First Instance which ordered the seizure of the 1,785 packets of various items belonging to J. I. Alinnor & Brothers Ltd., has violated Article 3(2)(d)(iii) and Article 4 of the Treaty of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). (2) That the Defendant, following his false declaration before the Benin Court of First Instance which ordered the seizure of the 1,785 packets of various items being transported by the Applicant, has violated the Applicant's right to equal protection by the law, given that the goods in question were seized contrary to Articles 3 and 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (1983 law on ratification and application). (3) That the continuing holding of the Applicant's truck, which had not been affected by the Order of seizure for protection-of-security issued by the Cotonou Court of First Instance, on 8 January 2004, is a flagrant violation of the Applicant's right to property provided for under Article 14 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights (1983 law on ratification and application). (4) That the continuing holding of the goods belonging to J. I. Alinnor & Brothers Ltd., on board the Applicant's truck, upon the basis of the Order of seizure for protection-of-security issued by the Cotonou Court of First Instance, which expired on 8th February 2004, is illegal, failing any principal case pending before a Cotonou Court relating to this particular Case; that the goods in question and the Applicant's truck are illegally being held, contrary to Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (1983 law on ratification and Application). 8. He advances a legal argument, that the 1st Defendant, Mr. Rachad Laleye employed "the judicial system of his country, by using a false deposition" to seize his trailer and the goods contained in it, thus denying him of his legal right to free movement and to do business in Benin. And that, this is contrary to the spirit of Article 3 of the Revised Treaty of the Economic Community of West African States, which guarantees the free movement of persons, goods, services, and capital, as well as the right to residence and establishment - insinuating thereby, that the Government of Benin abets the violation of the said Article and the provisions of Articles 2, 3, 7, and 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. This being so, the Courts in Benin did not give him any hearing before authorising the seizure of his trailer and goods. 9. He submitted that these arguments cannot stand the test of any legal analysis, and the Government of the Republic of Benin, through its judicial powers, has not violated in any way whatsoever the provisions indicated above, as shall be demonstrated. 3