presented in a formal way for its decision and referred to Halbury's Laws of England 4" edition tn buttress their contention. They also referred to Black's Law dictionary and the case of Pinner v. Pinner, 33 N.C. APP. 2004, 234 SE 2d 63d; that jurisdiction Is a term of comprehensive impact embracing every kind of judicial action. They also relied on the Nigerian case from the Supreme Court, namely, Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) NSCC 374 where four conditions must be present before the court can assume jurisdiction or be competent to hear matters before it. 4. Secondly, Learned Counsel submitted that the applicable law at the time the alleged cause of action arose in 2004 was protoco) A/P{/7/4l which provided individuals no direct access to the Court of the Community unless through their Member States which were required to represent them against another Member State in a dispute before the Court. On that score, he submitted that the applicant had no right to approach the Court at the time the cause of action arose or accrued. He contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction to determine a matter on account of legislation that its provisions are repealed or apply a subsequent legislation retrospectively. He referred to Protocol A/P.1/07/91 in respect of the former Protocol and Protocol A/SP.1/01/05. regarding the latter. 10. He submitted that the latter legislation cannot be applied herein because Article {(1) & (2) of the Supplementary Protocol Number (A/SP.1/01/05) grants no retrospective application to its provisions or that it should be subsumed with the former Protocol A/PI/07/91 on the ground that its provisions appeared not to have given it such interpretation. He contended that the latter Protocol provided that, “this supplementary Protocol shall enter into force provisionally upon signature by the Heads of State and Government as at January 2005". {{. He submitted that having entered into effect in 2005, it cannot be retrospectively interpreted to apply to a cause of action that arose in 2004. In response to this point, Learned Counsel to the Plaintiff submitted that a subsequent Act does not affect the provision of a prior special or private Act, unless it is expressly provided in a subsequent Act. He submitted that the 5