restating that these violations have generated pecuniary and moral damages for which he is entitled. RESPONDENT’S REJOINDER TO APPLICANT’S REPLY 27. The Respondent filed a rejoinder wherein it reiterated its stance in the defence earlier filed and urged the Court to grant its earlier request. JURISDICTION: 28. Objection on material jurisdiction. The Respondent contends that the Court is not vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate on the application, as it seeks the Court to sit as an appellate Court and pronounce itself on matters already considered and concluded by the Supreme Court of the Respondent. They therefore challenged the jurisdiction of the Court in that regard. The Applicant did not address this concern raised by the Respondent. *** 29. The Court reiterates that its jurisdiction has been clearly spelt out in Article 9(4) of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol, which empowers the Court to hear allegations of violation of human rights that occur in Member States. Being a creation of Statute, jurisdiction cannot be assumed or ousted by implication. It must be expressly conferred. To this end, the Court is bound to exercise its powers within its scope of jurisdiction. 30. While this Court has jurisdiction over human rights violations that occur in Member States of the ECOWAS, it has consistently held that it does not have the 11