services”, but “The causal link between the alleged damage by the Applicant and the border closure has not been established.” 58. That thus, the Court dismissed SUNDAY CHARLES UGWUABA's claims for damages. 59. That the Court did not fail to rule on Mr. Sunday's claims and that he only seeking the Court to annul its decision. The Court’s Analysis 60. As we have seen, Article 64 of the Rules of the Court, by establishing that: “Where the Court omits to give a decision on a specific head of claim or on costs, any party may within a month after service of the judgment apply to the Court to supplement its judgment”, authorizes the Court to remedy, in the Decision rendered, the omission of pronouncement it has committed on any question that has been raised for discussion by the parties. 61. In the instant case, it remains to be seen whether the court effectively failed to rule on the damages claimed by the Applicant. 62. The Applicant, by way of redress has sought in the original claim (the subject of the judgment at issue) that the Court issue: “(B) AN ORDER obliging the Respondent to pay to the applicant the sum of thirty-eight million, four hundred and fifty-four thousand, seventy-two Naira (₦38,454,072.00) only, being this the normal sale price of said goods in Nigeria after deduction of value obtained by the sale of the perished goods. 14