and any judgment arising therefrom no matter how well considered or beautifully written will be a nullity and a waste of time”. 47.Again, the Court has held that “to determine jurisdiction of a court to hear any particular matter, what ordinarily should be looked at is the Plaintiff’s claim and not the defence put forward by the defendant. Normally, it is the claim which determines whether the court has the jurisdiction to hear a matter and the defence should not ordinarily oust the jurisdiction of the court”. See EBERE ANTHONIA AMADI & 3 ORS V. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA (2019) JUDGMENT NO. ECW/CCJ/JUD/22/19 (UNREPORTED) @ pg. 8 48.The Applicant relied on legal provisions granting the human rights jurisdiction of this Court to ground his case by quoting Articles 9(4) of the 2005 Protocol on the Court which defines the competence of the Court to entertain cases of human rights violations that occur in member states to wit: “The Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any member state”. 49.The Court having perused the Applicant’s claim of violation of human rights, recalls its numerous jurisprudence to the effect that once an allegation of human rights violation is made, the court will assume jurisdiction simpliciter over the matter as a separate subject from the determination of the veracity of the claims being sought as amounting to violation of human rights. 50.In BAKARE SARRE v. MALI (2011) CCJELR 57, the Court stressed that: 21