relied on the case ofChukwu V. Amadi (2009) ALL FWLR Part 472 page 1193 No.4 where the court stated thus: "[aches denote an equitable principle by which (J 16. claimant who has unreasonably He therefore contended (J court denies relief to delayed or negligent in his claim" that the plaintiff did not exhaust all the available remedies provided before approaching this court. He submitted also that the plaintiff is trying to furnish the court with the said annexure in order to persuade the Court to make an order in vain. 17. He contended that the plaintiff is inviting the court to sit as an appellate court on an order made by a court of competent jurisdiction. He also submitted that he who asserts must prove, therefore the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that he is in detention really ascertain and that the only way to that the plaintiff is in custody is by adducing credible evidence through the production of the warrant of detention from the prison service. He therefore urged the court not to attach any probative value to the annexure to the motion on notice and to dismiss the suit in its entirety for want of credible evidence. 18. In reply, the learned counsel to the plaintiff submitted defendant that had contended in their amended that it was the statement of defence that the plaintiff was no longer in detention as the facts of the plaintiffs detention was not established. He relied on the sworn affidavit by the plaintiff himself before a notary public inside the Kiri-kiri Maximum Security Prison exhibit to prove that the plaiDtiff concerning the holding detention was pursuant charge and j<; stil1 in detention. the plaintiff He being in to the directive under Article 41(1) and (2) and Article 57(1) of the Rules of the Court which the court applied and directed the parties to show precisely whether or not the plaintiff is in l ----- -- ---- ---------