do so on behalf of the deceased estate. Thus, it is only the Administrators/ Executors and /or Probate Court as the case may be can legally empower a party suing on behalf of the deceased. Counsel to the 1st Defendant also referred to the decision of this Court in SERAP Vs FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & ANOR (ECW/CCJ/09/11) delivered on 13th February, 2013 which held that: “If for any reason the direct victim of the violation cannot exercise his or her rights, in particular, for being irreversibly incapacitated or having died as a result of the violation, the closest family members can do so, while assuming the status of direct victims”. Furthermore, to the 1st Defendant, the 1st Applicant is not a body known to law, that the burden of establishing that the Plaintiff is a body known to law rests on the Applicants. This burden of proof can only be discharged by production of the certificate of incorporation. He relied on FAWEHINMI Vs. N.B.A & 5 ORS (N° 2) (1989) 2 N W L R (PT 105) 558 at 632. He concluded that without this, the 1st Applicant, not being a juristic person, has robbed the Court of the jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant raised other issues bordering on terrorism to show why the case is incompetent. These matters appear to hinge on substantive issues already canvased and will be dealt with in the course of the substantive suit if any. With regard to issue (N°.2), the 1st Defendant argued that the claim for monetary compensation for and on behalf of the deceased and the victims who are alive are not grantable if the 1st Applicants have no locus standi to commence this action and that the action must fail. He therefore concluded and urged the Court to hold that the 1stApplicant’s lack the requisite locus standi and cause of action to commence the action against the 1st Defendant and that, in any case, their claims are by no means grantable. 3.2 The 2nd Defendant. The 2nd Defendant also filed a preliminary objection to the suit (document N°.4). The 2nd Defendant’s motion also raised objections similar to that of 10