referred the Court to Article 9 of the Supplementary Protocol (A/ SP/01/05) and Article 10(d) thereof. vi. That following the express and unequivocal consent of the Plaintiff (Applicant) to the training of his son, he cannot maintain an action in the tort of negligence. The defence of volenti non – fit injuria applies. vii. That being an action in tort, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the same as it has nothing to do with the violation of human rights. In conclusion, the Defendant urged the Court to decline jurisdiction for lack of cause of action and merit and to discountenance the witness depositions on oath as being baseless inconsistent and failing short of the requirement of law on oath taking. 6.2. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION: From the facts and pleas in law relied by the Applicant and the Defendant, the following issues calls for determination: i. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit ii. Whether from the totality of the evidence offered, there are reasonable grounds to support the claim. iii. What orders if any can this Honourable Court make in the circumstances. These issues will now be considered seriatim; I. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. 14