68 AFRICAN COURT LAW REPORT VOLUME 1 (2006-2016) reasons for this change in approach. Failure to do so would leave the impression of inconsistency and lack of coherence. Unfortunately, nothing is explained in this regard in the judgment. One of the consequences will be that with the unexplained changes or fluctuation in the Court’s practice, parties will be in the dark as to which legal issue to begin with henceforth, when they have to file an Application or make submissions before the Court. This may create unnecessary confusion. 4. In any case, this change in approach poses a problem of principle: is it possible for the Court to begin with the consideration of the admissibility of an Application before ensuring that it does have the jurisdiction to deal with the Application? In our opinion, the answer to this question is ‘no’ and for a certain number of reasons. Firstly, one should not lose sight of the fact that the jurisdiction of the Court is neither all embracing nor automatic in nature; it is a jurisdiction that has been attributed, subject to conditions, and therefore limited by definition. A judge vested with such jurisdiction cannot start considering any aspect of an Application without ascertaining whether or not he or she does have jurisdiction. Secondly, it should be realised that whereas jurisdiction relates to the powers of the judge, the admissibility of the Application is one limb of the Application same as the merits. In such circumstances, can a judge embark on the consideration of an aspect of an Application before determining whether he or she is in a position to consider the entire Application? Is there any sense in dealing with what he or she is requested to do before finding out whether he or she can or cannot do it? Logic and common sense would require that the Court should first and foremost ensure that it has jurisdiction before considering the admissibility of the Application. 5. This position is further buttressed, if need be, by the manner in which Rule 39 of the Rules of Court is crafted. That Rule prescribes that the Court should deal with these issues in this order: “Preliminary examination of the competence of the Court and of admissibility of Applications” (italics added). This provision clearly shows what was the initial intent of the Court on the order of consideration of issues relating to jurisdiction and admissibility. 6. In actual fact, the only stage in the procedure which should take precedence over the determination of the Court’s jurisdiction is the receipt and registration of the Application by the Registry, after ensuring that its contents comply with the provisions of Rule 34 of the Rules of Court. Receiving the Application should not however be equated to the admissibility of the Application which lies within the jurisdiction of the Court and is therefore considered later by the latter, pursuant to Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 40 of the Rules of Court. 7. In the light of the above considerations, the Court ought to and should in future dispose of its jurisdiction before dealing with the Application submitted for consideration, except cogent reasons exist for it to deviate from that normal procedure.