specifically and expressly provide that the provision of the subsequent Act, and legislation has repealed a prior legislation or enactment and he referred to the case of Odugbo v Abu (2005) 49 WRNI at 6 and 7. 25. 25. He submitted that the Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 did not repeal Protocol A/PI/7/81 to the extent of extinguishing the plaintiffs' Fundamental Rights. However, learned counsel to the defendant dwelt on the fact that where the subsequent Protocol is capable of being read retrospectively to confer right on the Plaintiffs to approach the court for redress, it should be so read. After considering the arguments of Counsel on these constituents points for the third condition, the Court holds that Article 8 (3) of the Protocol on the Court as amended is a statute of limitation and applicable in this case. In the said Article 9(3) the word "shall" was used to mean that a cause of action which arose more than 3 years before the application for reliefs regarding a violation is sought is statute barred thereby making the relief non justiciable. The cause of action in the instant case arose on the 24hth of April 21104 and the case was lodged into the docket of the Courts Registry on the 26th of October 2007, exceeding the prescribed period by 8 months. 26. It is trite law that where a statute is made with retrospective effect which may concern the whole provisions of the statute or a part thereof, the court shall construe the statute in such a manner as to give effect to the intention expressed in the statutes. It is well settled also that when the words of a statutes are themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more is necessary than to expound the words in their natural and ordinary meaning. This was the interpretation this Court maintained and adopted in Afolabi v. FRN (supra); These authorities from the National Court are on the same manner of interpretation decided that words should be given their natural and ordinary meaning- see Ahmad V. Kassim(I85B) SCNlR 58; Nabhan v. Nabhan (1867)1 All NLR 47 and 54. Also a statute can be passed for the purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former statute and the subsequent statute may have relation back to the 11