The Plaintiffs in the present case did not file any motion to amend their originating Application but rather responded to Defendant’s objection by merely stating that there was a typographical error as regards the date. This Court cannot rely on the Plaintiff response to the objection that goes to the root of the 2 nd Plaintiffs’ case without more to amend an originating process. Moreover, the inconsistency in the dates are too distinct to be overlooked as a mere typographical error in that the dates and the years in issue are completely different to say the least. Indeed the 2nd Plaintiffs’ contention of typographical error is an afterthought and cannot stand. Consequently, this Court is convinced that the action complained of by the 2nd Plaintiff occurred on the 9th of January 2010 and filed on 17th September 2014. The 2nd Plaintiff’s alleged arrest and detention was carried out on the 9th of January 2010 and thereafter she was released after several hours of detention. The said conduct cannot be considered as a continuous violation and time begins to run the moment she was released from police custody. See SERAP V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/12, UNREPORTED where the Court in its analysis stated that their subjection to the statute of limitation depends on the characterization of the act as an isolated act or a persistent and continuous omission that lasted until the date the complaint was filed with the Court. It is necessary to point out that the violation complained of here is a onetime act against the 2nd plaintiff. Not being a continuing violation as to keep alive the 28