the Plaintiff that the violations are still continuing as a result of the unceasing nature of the oil spills and the damage done to the environment. The Plaintiff concluded that Article 9(3) does not apply to the instant case. Analysis of the Court 58. In the instant case, the issue of statute of limitation raised by the Defendants based on facts that took place more than three years before the complaint was filed with the Court may be analysed in line with the date of the enactment of the ECOWAS 2005 Protocol which entrusted the Community Court of Justice with jurisdiction to entertain cases of human rights violation. 59. The facts that occurred before the Protocol of 2005 came into force cannot be taken into consideration in this case for the simple reason that the said of that instrument, their Protocol cannot be applied retroactively. 60. As for the facts that occurred after the enactment subjection to the statute of limitation depends on their characterisation as an isolated act or as a persistent and continuous omission that lasted until the date the complaint was filed with the Court. 61. Indeed, in the Nigeria application lodged is faulted for omission by the Plaintiff, the Federal over the years in taking measures Republic of to prevent environmental damage and making accountable those who caused the damage to the environment in the Niger Delta Region. 62. It is trite law that in situations of continued illicit behaviour, the statute of limitation shall only begin to run from the time when such unlawful conduct or omission came ceases. Therefore, the acts which into force, in relation to which the occurred Federal after the 2005 Republic Protocol of Nigeria had a conduct considered as omissive, are not statute barred. 17|Page