Accordingly, from the narration of facts presented by the Applicants, the Court holds that they have made out a cause of action necessitating the Court’s adjudication. One of the issues raised by the 3rd Defendant in its preliminary objection is that “The suit is an academic exercise and constitutes an abuse of judicial process. The basis of this plea according to the 3rd Defendants is that the suit is an abuse of Court process in that the suit is the same with the complaint before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) lodged on 24th September, 2013 (see Exhibits D SS1 and DSS 2 of the Affidavit in support) and that NHCR has already rendered a ruling and as such the instant suit became inescapably doomed to fail and as such constitute abuse of process”. The Applicants herein are seeking for damages which have been awarded to them by the NHRC. In the same vein the 3rd Defendant opined that the suit is merely an academic exercise because the reliefs sought by the Applicants’ before this Court in the same as the orders made by the NHRC in its ruling of 17th April, 2014. However, curiously, the 3rd Defendant neither alleged nor established that the Applicants were parties to the petition or that the NHRC is a Court of law. Be that as it may, even if these were established, this could not have been a bar to the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction. This is because Article 10(d) of the Supplementary Protocol relating to the Community Court of Justice with regard to access to the Court provides that access is open to: Individuals on application for relief for violation of their human rights, the submission of which shall: i. Not be anonymous; nor ii. Be made whilst the same matter has been instituted before another international Court for adjudication. This Court has reiterated that it cannot impose other extraneous conditions on litigants other than the ones provided for in this Protocol. Accordingly, we hold that the Applicants have satisfied the conditions precedent for access to this Court. Consequently, the Application is neither an abuse of Court process nor an academic exercise. 19