90. The Respondent State further indicates that the DRC having refrained from filing an appeal within the timeframe laid down by law, the Chief Registrar of the Kivu Appeals Court in Bukavu issued to Mr. KAFWA on the 19th August 1985, a certificate reporting the absence of any appeal on the part of the DRC against ruling No RC.1443. 91. In order to fully enjoy his right of ownership, Mr. KAFWA filed a writ for eviction under RC 1683 on 22 November 1985 against Mr. KIZILA wa TUBULWA who according to the Respondent State was occupying the disputed building with neither Title Deed nor right under RC 1683. 92. The case having been adjourned on two successive occasions, it eventually took place with Mr. NOCA Lucio and Mr. KASILEMBO KAKIENGNE through a subpoena for intervention of 3 January 1986. 93. The Respondent State asserts that during the proceedings Mr. KASILEMBO had placed his withdrawal on record following a letter of 8 January 1986. 94. The Respondent State continues by saying that the case (RC 1683) of the 19th February 1986 led to Mr. KIZILA and his family being condemned to eviction and to the payment of an amount of fifty thousand (50,000) zaire to Mr. KAFWA; and also condemned Messrs NOCA Lucio, KAZILA, KASILEMBO to pay a third each of the costs. 95. The Respondent State still in its memorandum declared that the DRC, sequel to the acquisition of a special proxy provided by the Secretary of State for Justice on behalf of DRC filed an appeal on the 12th February 1986 under RCA.1180 against the Judgement RC.1443. 96. Mr. KIZILA also filed for appeal under RCA 1155 against RC 1683 of 19 February 1986. Mr. NOCA Lucio also instituted proceedings under RC 1729 before the Bukavu High Court supposedly in third-party opposition against Judgement No RC 1443. 97. The Respondent State further declares that by a ruling of the 7th July 1986, the Bukavu High Court referred the case in third-party opposition on the express request of the third opponent NOCA Lucio to the Court of Appeal for it to be joined to that of RCA 1155 which was pending on the appeal of KIZILA and RCA.1180 pending on the appeal of the Republic. 98. A single and only Judgement was delivered by the Bukavu Court of Appeal after having ruled on the entire litigation after combination of the different cases under RCA 1180/1155 and RC 1729, declaring them inadmissible for violation of the law of Mr. NOCA's third party opposition under RC 1729 and the appeal of the Republic under RCA 1180 and the unjustified appeal of Mr. KIZILA under RCA.1155. 99. The Respondent State further declares that the first appeal for annulment of judgement No. RCA1155/1180/1729 of 9 April 1991 was filed through the requests of 31st May and 25th June 1991 by the parties NOCA Lucio, KIZILA and the DRC under RC1704/1705. The outcome was a Judgement of the 3rd March 1994 delivered by the Supreme Court referring the case to the Kinshasa/Matete Appeals Court and stated the law that: "the jurisdiction of discharge should not take into account the notification of the first proof ruling served to the Governor of the Region in lieu and on behalf of the Ministry of Justice or of his delegate to decree the inadmissibility of the appeal by the Republic of Zaire for lateness". 100. The Respondent State also intimates that in view of Mr. NOCA's demise on the 27th May 1992 in Sorvedolo in Italy, since no haste was made to direct the case to the Matete Appeals Court which had been duly seized by the ruling on referral by the Supreme Court, Mr. KAFWA took charge of it by sending to the different parties the notifications for appeals and subpoenas and the notifications for the dates of the common hearings. The Court of Appeal, satisfied that it had been duly seized of the said acts, ruled on the case and pronounced on 20 December 1994, under RCA.001, a ruling confirming the appealed Judgment in all its provisions. 101. The Respondent State asserts that the Judgement delivered paved the way for an appeal for annulment initiated under RC. 029/TSR by way of an application filed on 3rd May 1995 at the Registry of the Supreme Court by the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mr. Noca Lucio and KIZILA WATUMBULWA respectively. 102. The Supreme Court ruled by Judgement of the 21st January 2000. It declared inadmissible the appeal for annulment emanating from NOCA Lucio, but received the joint appeal by the DRC and KIZILA WATUMBULWA, the said counsel and referred the case to the Judicial Division for ruling on the merits. 103. The Respondent State further indicates that the case referred by the ruling of the Appeals Court to the Judicial Division of the Supreme Court had had two major highlights, namely the pursuance of the suit by the successors of NOCA Lucio, deceased on 27 December 1992, and then the testimony of the said successors under the terms of which the late NOCA Lucio, during his lifetime, had already sold the disputed building to Mr. KASILEMO, with the consequence that his successors could no longer lay any claim to the disputed building. 8