violation of the right of entire communities”. (SERAP Vs FGN &or, 2010 CCJ LR 231 at 248). This is reflective in the case at hand when mass killing of hundreds of people and destruction of properties across many communities is alleged. In as much as such individual(s) is (are) not suing for their personal gain, for families or nuclear groups the right to seek such reliefs for actual victims premised on public interest is a validation of access and enthronement of justice. This individual is distinguishable from the earlier person (Supra 60) who can sue on behalf of a close family member supported with authority where applicable. However there are two conditions in the implementation of this principle, the first is that the action must be premised on public interest. Following from the above is the second ingredient which is that reliefs sought must not be for the benefit of the Applicant. With regards to the condition that the action must be premised on public interest, there was uncontroverted report of mass killings and wanton destruction of properties across over 15 communities in Benue State, resulting in the loss of several hundreds of lives and destruction of properties. This occurrence is of grave concern to the general public. Therefore the alleged massive killings and destruction of properties of such magnitude is a matter that any public spirited individual is entitled to litigate for the public good and to avoid future occurrence. The Court therefore holds that a public interest has been established. With regards to the condition that relief sought must not be for the direct benefit of the Applicant, the Court notes from the originating Application that the declarations and orders sought are a mixed bag. Some are for themselves only and some on behalf of the communities. To the extent that some reliefs are for the benefit of the communities alleged to have been affected, the Court holds that the second condition has been fulfilled to bring this case under the principle of actio popularis and that the Applicants are proper persons to bring this case. The case is therefore admitted and the Court will proceed to decide same on its merits. 64. The Applicants in grounding this case must prove the alleged killings and destruction of properties. He who alleges must prove. In FEMI FALANA & ANOR V. REP OF BENIN & 2 ORS (2012) ECW/CCJ/JUD/02/12 pg. 34, the court held that: “As always, the onus of proof is on a party who asserts a fact and who will fail if that fact fails to attain that standard of proof that will persuade the court to believe the statement of the claim”. 28