The third Plaintiff witness, is Amunwa Nnaemeka a member of the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps. He knew the Plaintiff. He testified that on 12/04/2014 while on his Duty post he overheard two women discussing that Chief Alabeke’s house (the 1st Plaintiff) has been demolished. Being a surveillance officer, he decided to go to the scene. On his way he saw security agents, Police, Army and Imo Network personnel on a Hilux Van and when he got to the 1st Plaintiff’s house, he was informed of the demolition of the house by Security agents and also saw the demolished house. He took his personal inventory and left. He didn’t know the reason for the demolition. The Plaintiff closed his case. It is to be noted that the Defendant merely filed a notice of preliminary objection without taking any further step in the proceedings. The Preliminary objection was dismissed on the 11th March, 2017 and the Defendant did not take further steps in the proceedings. However, for purposes of clarity, both the preliminary objection and the substantive suit will be determined herein. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION PRELIMINARY OBJECTION In addressing the preliminary objection raised by the Respondents this court has to determine: 1. WHETHER THIS COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THIS MATTER AS CONSTITUTED. 2. WHETHER THE 2ND RESPONDENT IS A PROPER PARTY IN THIS SUIT. WHETHER THIS COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THIS MATTER AS CONSTITUTED. Jurisdiction is the fulcrum of any successful proceeding. This implies that any matter assumed in excess of jurisdiction is an exercise in futility. Jurisdiction cannot be implied or conferred by agreement but must be provided for by statutes. It is therefore imperative to consider whether or not this court is ceased with the requisite jurisdiction as it relates to the facts of this case. Article 9 (4) of the Supplementary Protocol (A/SP.1/01/05) provides: “The court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any member state”. 7