ii. Whether the claim of the 2nd Plaintiff’s is statute barred by effluxion of time. Article 9(3) of the Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 provides that: “Any action by or against a Community Institution or any Member of the Community shall be statute barred after three (3) years from the date when the right of action arose.” From the facts before this Court, the 2nd Plaintiff’s action arose on the 9th January 2010 as seen on the face of the originating Application. The Application was lodged at the Registry on the 17th day of September 2014. This Court in determining when a cause of action arose has held that the right of action used in Article 9 (3) of the Protocol means the right to bring a specific case to a Court or Tribunal. That right is dependent on whether as of the date the action is brought to Court, all the necessary facts are available and any prerequisite legal or factual situations have been satisfied. See Valentine Ayika V. Republic of Liberia 2011 CCJELR. The Defendant contends that the claim of the 2nd Plaintiff is Statute barred having been brought outside the limitation period. The Plaintiffs in response to the objection submitted that the 2nd Plaintiff was arrested and detained on 8th January 2011 and not 9th January 2010 as stated in the originating application and that the 9th January 2010 so stated was as a result of typographical error. In amending an initiating Application, there is need in the interest of justice for a formal motion to be filed and moved not only so as to obtain the consent of the Court, but to give the other party the opportunity to react before such amendment can be made. 27