The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff’s main claim being seizure of his certificates is not maintainable before this court. The Defendants further argued that a party seeking relief under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) must ensure that the principal relief is directly on the infringement of his rights as captured in chapter IV of the Constitution. That the Plaintiff’s main claim is not a right within the contemplation of chapter IV of the Constitution. It is clear that the Defendant has misconceived the laws upon which the Plaintiff substantiates his claim. In as much as the case laws of member states could be persuasive, this Court is not bound by them. Where allegations of rights brought before it are in line with the international instruments which that member state has ratified, the Court will determine the matter on the merit notwithstanding the absence of specificity in citing the laws of that member state. By virtue of such ratification, member states are bound to protect and promote the human rights of its citizenry against any form of violation. The Plaintiffs argument are hinged on violations of several Articles of the African Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Assuming without conceding that the Defendants Constitution did not make provisions for the act complained of, the presence or absence of certain provisions in the said constitution does not oust this court’s jurisdiction to entertain a matter particularly where the human right instruments ratified by that member state protect those rights. 27