their communities. The Applicants were only introduced in the Originating Application as “citizens of the Federal Republic of Nigeria who hail from and or resides on its own properties in Benue State of Nigeria”. Other than this, there is no evidence in all documents filed that indicate their implication in this crisis as victims. There is no evidence to show they were at any time within the crises zone, nor any narration as to witnessing the alleged killings and destruction of property. There is no evidence of loss, damage and injury that was articulated by any of them either personally or to close family members. There is no record to show that any of these Applicants have personal and direct interest to ground this action (See Odafe Oserada v. ECOWAS Council of Ministers, ECOWAS Parliament & ECOWAS Commission, ECW/CCJ/JUD/01/08). Finally there is no evidence to show any mandate from any member of the community who was a victim that authorized these Applicants to sue on their behalf (See Nosa Ehanire & 3 Ors v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, (2017) CCJELR). 56. Since Applicants 2, 3, 4, 5, 8,9,10 and 11 did not establish by documentary or oral evidence proof of their status either as direct or indirect victim; their claims for relief for themselves fails. 57. The 12th Applicant is an organization named Movement against Fulani Occupation (MAFO), other than the fact that it is referred to as the 12th Applicant in the Originating Application, the Court has no record of its mandate, its membership and evidence of registration as a legal organization and of course no evidence that it has a mandate from the said communities to act on their behalf. It is trite law that an organization without a legal capacity cannot sue and be sued; having not provided a certificate of registration from a recognized and appropriate body, MOFA has not established a legal capacity to sue on its behalf and for others. See Judgment No.ECW/CCJ/JUD/05/11 of May 2011 in Suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/07/09, CDD and CDHRD v. Mamadou Tandja & Republic of Niger, para. 29 where the Court held as follows: “The Applicants are not Associations formed from the laws of Niger and do not have any justification either as constituting a part of the Republic of Niger. The said decisions cannot therefore be against them and does not concern them intimately or remotely; they cannot therefore constitute 24