23. Responding to the allegation of non- conformity with Rule 33(2) of the Rules
of Court to provide an address for service at the seat of the Court, the Applicant,
while not contesting the lapse, denies that it renders the application inadmissible. He
argues that under Article 33(6) of the Rules of Court, only a Judge can declare an
application inadmissible for want of compliance with Article 33(2) of the Rules of
Court. It is therefore premature at this stage for the Respondent to seek to declare
the application inadmissible.
24. In regard to the objection of non- conformity with Rule 28(3) of the Court, which
requires the presentation of a qualifying certificate to practice in Senegal, the
Applicant stated that his counsel though a lawyer registered with the Bar in Paris has
the express authorization to practice abroad by the Lawyers’ Privilege Council in
Paris while still a Member of the Bar in Paris. He states that the authorisation enables
him to register and practice in Senegal with the Law Firm of Cabinet SCP M’baye
Dieng & Associes, registered with the Bar in Dakar (Copy of the said authorization
to practice abroad was annexed).
25. On the alleged violation of the right to a fair hearing, the Applicant restated the
fact that he was never informed of the proceedings which led to the forced sale of
his building to Mrs. Salimata Siama and that the right to a fair trial guarantees that
no one should be judged without having been heard.
26. On the right to property, the Applicant states that it is undisputable that he is the
owner of the building located at Fass Delorme, which he acquired on April 22, 1963.
Since the building had never been alienated by him, it remains his exclusive
property, and the sale judgment and the various court decisions that illegally and
unfairly appropriated his property to a third party comes to naught. He concluded by
10