inescapably doomed to failure, they may be dismissed as being an abuse of the process of the Court”. The 3rd Defendant posited that the suit by the Applicants constitutes an abuse of Court process because the complaint before the National Human Rights Commission pursuant to sec 5(a) and (j) of the National Human Rights Commission, which necessitated a public inquiry, is the same as the present suit. That the Commission having awarded N 10 million in respect of each of the deceased person and N5 Million Naira to each of the Applicants in this suit, divests the Court of jurisdiction to make any other award on the same subject matter as it will tantamount double portion, which the law frowns act. He urged the Court to dismiss the suit on grounds of abuse of process. The 3rd Defendant also submitted that the suit is an academic exercise having regard to the reliefs sought by the Applicants as enumerated above. He argued that those reliefs were the same sought before Nigeria’s National Human Rights Commission for which an award was made. Relying on the Nigerian cases of PLATEAU STATE GOVERNMENT Vs. AG. OF THE FEDERATION (2006) 3 N W L R (PT 967) P 346 at 419. ADEOGUN Vs. FASHOGBON (2008) 1 7 NWLR (PT 1115) 149 at 180181 and AGBAKOBA Vs. INEC (2008) 18 NWLR (PT 1119) P. 489 at 546547, he urged this Court to decline jurisdiction as it would amount embarking in a futile exercise since the suit is merely academic and has no practical utilitarian value to the Plaintiffs. On the issue of locus standi of the 1st Applicant, he submitted on the same line with the 1st Defendant that the 1st Applicant lacks a standing to institute this suit since “is not qualified under our laws to present this claim”. He relied on SERAP Vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (suit no: ECW/CCJ/APP/09/2011 delivered on 13/12/2014. He concluded that the issue of absence of locus standi goes to issue of jurisdiction and that since the Applicant lacks standing to institute the proceedings, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear same. 12