2. Whether from the claim of the 2nd Plaintiff’s is statute barred by effluxion of time. 3. Whether the totality of evidence adduced in this case is sufficient to establish the Plaintiffs’ allegations of arrest, detention and infliction of physical violence by the officers of the AEPB and the Police. 4. Whether from the totality of facts adduced the Defendant is in breach of its obligation as alleged 5. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought. The jurisdiction of this Court has been clearly spelt out in Article 9 of the Supplementary Protocol (A/SP.1/01/05). Whereas the Plaintiff alleged a violation of their human rights, the Defendant maintain that the issue borders on legalization of prostitution. However, it is trite that jurisdiction is inferred from the Plaintiffs claim and not the defence. A careful perusal of the facts presented by the Plaintiff brings out the following facts; i. They were arrested by agents of the Defendant ii. Their arrest was wrongful iii. They were detained for several hours under inhuman condition iv. They were subjected to degrading treatment, mental and physical abuse v. They were released without charges and apologies The Defendants generally denied these allegations. 24