30. The Plaintiff further stated that the said violation occurred ninety-eight years thence and but he failed to bring an action at the time, he however relies on Amodu Tijani v The Secretary, Southern Provinces (1921) a Privy Council decision which dealt with ownership of land and compensation for dispossession brought in 1921 against the British Government. A case which was brought against the British Government and the Privy Council decided in favour of the Plaintiff. The case relied on by the Plaintiff was brought some ninety-eight years previously against the British Colonial Administration, who also happen to be the perpetrators of the alleged violation in the instant case. 31. The Court notes that the Plaintiff claimed that his fore-fathers did not bring an action earlier as they were impeded by their lack of education. This brings us to the equitable maxim “Equity aids the vigilant not the indolent.” This means that one who has been wronged must act relatively swiftly to seek redress of his violated rights as alleged and the Plaintiff in the instant case did not seek redress until 2013. 32. The Plaintiff further cited the case of Oduntan Onisiwo v. The Attorney-General (1912) 2 NLR 79 wherein the Court, at the time, compensated the Plaintiff (Onisiwo) for land which had been previously acquired. We note that the case cited was determined in 1912 against the administration that acquired the property. 33. In the instant case, the Court has to determine whether the alleged violation is of a continuous nature or not. It is clear that the Plaintiff was given the opportunity to be heard in the national Court and a decision was delivered against him on his claim. On the ground, the alleged violation cannot be continuous and therefore is not justified under the exception. 34. One thing is clear, the Court is bound by article 9 (3) and that the only exception is gross violation which is of a continuing nature to justify a departure from the statute. Given that the Plaintiff has a right which he claims to have been violated his failure to seek redress over a period of ninety-eight years makes his claim bad in law. In the circumstances the claim by the Plaintiff is out of time and this Court cannot therefore entertain such an application as it is statute barred. Decision 35. The Court sitting in public and having heard the Parties, decides as follows: i. ii. iii. That the cause of action is statute barred pursuant to article 9 (3) of the Supplementary Protocol (A/SP.1/01/05). That the action is hereby dismissed. That costs of the action be borne by parties. 7