34 - “36. The Court notes that, with regard to the implementation of the programme of restoration of democracy, local elections were organized on 8 th January 2011; legislative elections followed on 31st January 2011, while Mr. Mahamadou Issifou of the le Parti Nigerien pour la Democratie et le Socialisme (PNDS) was elected President of the Republic of Niger, following a two-round Presidential election held on 31st January 2011 and 12th March 2011. He was sworn in on 7th April 2011.” “37. With regard to these latter events which occurred, and as exposed above, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs’ claims seeking various orders of injunction to restrain Mr. Mamadou Tandja from organizing the criticized referendum, modifying the Constitution and quelling protestation marches have become devoid of purpose, pursuant to Article 88(2) of its Rules cited above.” 9.3. The facts in this cited case are wholly analogous to those in this instant case. We note that the case was filed against President Goodluck Jonathan and his People’s Democratic Party for having conducted a fundraising rally in violation of the Electoral Laws of Nigeria by exceeding the maximum amount which can be raised by a political party. The complaint was that this gave the President and his ruling party an undue advantage to the detriment of the Plaintiffs and other candidates in the 2015 elections. The trend of events has shown that President Goodluck Jonathan did not win the elections and has already conceded defeat to his rival Gen. Mohammedu Buhari; in fact, Gen. Buhari has already been inaugurated into office as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 9.4. Therefore, just as this Court determined in the Mamadou Tandja case, this present case is devoid of purpose since President Goodluck Jonathan and his PDP did not win the elections, hence this instant case has lost its meaning and is hereby ruled to be devoid of purpose, and hence dismissible. 9.5. Be it reminded that since our handling of this case is still on issues of law raised by the Defendants in opposition to this case, we reiterate that by this Ruling, the Court does not go to or comment on the merits of the complaints as laid in the Originating Application in that once the Court’s jurisdiction is questioned, the Court must first examine and determine that it has jurisdiction before it can reach the merits of the controversy before it.