a legitimate aim. The Court holds that there has been a violation of the Plaintiff’s rights to be heard, right to privacy and right to property. AS TO EXHAUSTION OF LOCAL REMEDIES AND PROPER PARTIES The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff has not explored any means of amicable settlement with the Defendant before instituting this matter. Also, that by the entire facts of the case, the Defendant is not liable to the Plaintiff for any wrong doing as the Defendant is merely joint as a party in this suit to confer jurisdiction on the Court. There is no hard and fast rule concerning the exhaustion of local remedies. This court has stated in its numerous jurisprudence that individuals are at liberty to choose wherever they elect to file their causes or matters pertaining to violations of their human rights once the matters imbibed the international law or community texts therein. See SIKIRU ALADE V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA, (2012), CCJELR unreported supra @ para 32. In HADIJATOU KARAOU (2004) CCJELR p228 where the issue was as to whether or not the non-inclusion of the precondition for exhaustion of local remedies was a lacuna which the court has to fill. The court made an exhaustive analysis of Article 4(g) of the Revised Treaty vis à vis Article 56 of the African charter and concluded that the modalities for the protection and promotion of human rights must not be those provided for by the charter in that, a distinction must be made between the setting out of the fundamental principles of the charter and the modalities for implementing such rights. The court then held that the absence of the requirement 33