3.4 The Applicants Reply. The Applicants filed a counter affidavit to the affidavit of the Defendants. He opposed the granting of the objections of the Defendants (see documents, 7, 11, and 12). First, in his counter affidavit in support of Reply to the Applicants to the preliminary objection, the 1st Applicant exhibited its CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION (marked exhibit 1), the process of registration with the Corporate Affairs Commission (exhibit 2) and the Constitution of the 1 st Applicant (exhibit 3). The first Applicant argued that it was suing in a representative capacity and on behalf of the relatives of the deceased which it has exhibited on the face of the record. Accordingly, SERAP Vs. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (SUPRA) does not apply. The 1st Applicant also argued that it was not a party to the petition before the National Human Rights Commission as shown on the processes before this Court and cannot be engaging in academic exercise. He also contended that this could only avail to the Respondents especially the 3rd Respondent/ object or if it was raised in the substantive suit. He cited the decision of this Court in ESSIEN VS. REPUBLIC OF GAMBIA & ANOR (2004-2009) CCJ ELR 95 at 108. Furthermore, the 1st Applicant argued that the argument that this suit is an abuse of Court process and an academic exercise on an account of similar suit having been determined by the National Human Rights Commission, is misconceived. He relied on Article 10(d) of the Supplementary Protocol of this Court, 2005 as the only condition precedent to invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. In its totality, the 1st Applicant urged this Honourable Court to dismiss the objections of the Defendants in its totality. 4 Analyses of the Court. Having considered the facts of this case, the preliminary objections raised by the Defendants and the reply of the Applicants and the legal arguments 13