When the matter came up on the 14th March, 2016, the Plaintiffs asked for adjournment on the grounds of their inability to produce some documents. The matter was reluctantly adjourned to the 10th of May, 2016, a date the Court did not sit. When the matter came up on 06th October, 2016, the Plaintiff called all their witness who adopted their statement on Oath, and the other witness also testified and were cross examined by the Defendants. Thus the Plaintiffs closed their case and the matter was adjourned to the 17th day of June, 2016 for defence. However, the Court did not sit on that date. The matter came up on 14th October, 2016 for defence but could not go on due to the inability of the Defendant to produce the two witnesses it intended calling. The matter was therefore adjourned to the 08th November for definite defence. When the matter came up on the 08 th of November, 2016, the Defendants failed to produce any witness and opted to answer to the case on points of law alone. The Court therefore closed the case of the Defendant, thereby dispensing with the Defendant’s application to call oral witness with the concurrence of the Defendant. 6.1. ANALYSIS BY THE COURT The Four Plaintiffs who were variously described in the narration of facts above brought this action for various declarations and orders relating to the violation of their fundamental human rights by Agents and institutions of the Defendant. The crux of the claim is the illegal arrest and detention, harassment, abduction and various forms of physical assaults committed by the Defendant via its agents at 19