of Member States. Thus, when human rights applications are brought before the Court, it will inquire into the human rights allegations but will resist any invitation to act as an appellate court to the domestic courts of Member States as it clearly does not have that jurisdiction.” See OCEAN KING NIGERIA LTD v. REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL ECW/CCJ/JUD/07/11-REV @ page 11. 33. Reiterating the above, the Court held that, “it is not an appellate court and will only admit cases from national courts where human rights violations were alleged in the course of the proceedings. See JUSTICE PAUL UUTER DERRY & 2 ORS v. THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA unreported ECW/CCJ/JUD/17/19 @ Pg. 28. This issue was finally put to rest when the Court held that; “… It has severally drawn a distinction between its lack of jurisdiction to examine the decisions of national courts and its jurisdiction to hear cases of human rights abuses arising therefrom. The Court has consistently held that it cannot sit on appeal over decisions of national Courts of Member States.” See FINANCE INVESTMENT & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (FIDC) V. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA unreported ECW/CCJ/JUD/23/18 @ pg. 11. 34. This exercise of the Court’s mandate is not to pronounce on the propriety or otherwise of the substance of the decision rendered by the Member State but to examine the processes leading to the decision with the view to finding whether any protected substantive or procedural rights of the Applicant were violated. Such a mandate should not be construed either in form or substance as amounting to 13