Accordingly, applying these principles to the facts of the Applicant’s claim, it is evident that it falls within the ambit of the Courts jurisdiction. The objection of the Defendant on this Court lacks merit and deserves to be discountenance as is hereby dismissed. The Defendant has also raised the defence of consent or volenti non- fit injuria as a bar to this claim. This cannot be correct. Volenti non –fit injuria or simply put a person who consents to the harm done to him cannot be seen to complain. This Court having stated that it has jurisdiction, cannot bar itself from exercising it on the basis of a private law defence in tort. This is not a tort claim but a human rights litigation. Even if the Applicant and the deceased to undertaking the training with no claim against the Defendant’s Institution this did not exonerate the Defendants from exercising due care and diligence in the course of any exercise involving the deceased. Assuming but not conceding that the defence is available to the Defendant, it is a matter to be considered in the substantive suit and not at the preliminary stage. This can be no exclusionary clause in a human rights action consent to training coupled with the undertaken nor to maintain an action in the event of an injury is not an invitation to murder, suicide or any other malfeasance. The law must impute due care and diligence on the part of the training Institution only to the extent that it did not breach this duty of care, if not so such blanket protection will be catastrophic to society. Accordingly, the defence of consent must also fail. 18