“However, where the case has been fixed for hearing, leave to withdraw is required as the Rule gives power to the court to allow discontinuance. Leave may be granted on terms as to costs and as to any subsequent suit and otherwise as to the court may deem just. In other words, the court must consider the justice of allowing subsequent suit and otherwise." “It is in clear understanding of the above that the Applicants sought the LEAVE of the Honorable Court to discontinue this suit for reasons already stated.” “It is trite law that the Court exercises her discretion based on the facts disclosed by the party seeking to benefit from the discretionary jurisdiction of the court. The case on hand is one where the applicants seek to benefit from the discretionary powers of this Honorable Court by asking for permission to discontinue this suit and for this suit to be struck out instead of dismissal.” “To dismiss this suit based on the inadvertence of Counsel will go against the driving and core intendment of the framers of the Nigeria Fundamental Rights (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009, the principal instrument upon which this application is brought. The Court is by the Nigeria Fundamental Rights(Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 (FREP2009) expected to constantly and conscientiously seek to give effect to the overriding objectives of the FREP 2009 at every stage of human rights action especially when it exercises any power given it by the rules of FREP 2009 or any other law and whenever it applies or interprets any rule. We humbly refer the court to Aryicle 3 of the Preamble of the FREP 2009 and urge Milords to lean towards substantial justice and away from technical justice as espoused by the Respondents.” “1.12. The reason for our application for leave to withdrawal/discontinuance is not because the Applicants lack cause or right of action or that the suit is Statute Barred as contended by the 1st, 2nd 6th and 7th Respondents in Document 3. This suit is not statute barred because the threat complained of is in continuum.” - 23 “1.13. The 4th and 5th Defendants (Field Experts and agents of 1st, 2nd, 3rd , 6th and 7th Defendants never denied the injuries of the Applicants but simply stated at paragraph 13 of page 6 of their defence (Document 2) that “4 th and 5th Respondents aver that they are not in a position to state where and when the applicants sustained t h ei r i n ju ri es o r wh ere they co me fro m” “1.14. The 4th and 5th Defendants never denied the presence of unexploded bombs and threats associated thereto but gave excuses why they have continued to disobey the orders of this court made on the 7th day of November 2013. The