44. Allegation of failure of the Respondent to pay compensation for the staff canteens built in 36 States of the Federation by Applicants: The Applicants averred that during their years of service, they formed a cooperative group in which monies were contributed to build canteens across the 36 States of the federation in which the NITEL/MTEL offices were located. Same having been sold during the privatisation process, they urged the court to order the Respondent to refund the sum of 2 Billion Naira as the estimated cost of building the said staff canteens. Apart from the letter on page 500 of the originating application dated 17th August, 2016 and addressed to the liquidators requesting for the payment of 5 Billion Naira estimated cost of building the canteens, there is no evidence of title deed either conferring ownership of the said canteens or evidence of building expenditure by the Applicants or records of contributions indicating their investment in the said canteens. Since the Applicants alleged to have built the canteens they should have documents in their possession to support their claim. As stated above, he who alleges bears burden of proof where facts of allegation are within their knowledge and custody. The Applicants have failed to satisfy the Court on this claim as ownership of the 36 canteens has not been established. The Applicants’ claim of violation of their right to property under this head fails and the Court so holds. The Applicants also made a further cocktail of claims including non-payment of October salary/ house rent allowance to the said disengaged staff, Three months’ salary in lieu of notice and payment of workman life pension of one million Naira each. None of these claims were addressed at all in their pleas. Having being unsubstantiated, the said claims are dismissed. Following from all the analysis of this instant case, the Court adjudicating in a public hearing, in the first and last resort, after hearing parties on matter of human rights violation, decides as follows: DECISIONS: DECLARES 1. That the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present suit being premised on allegation of violation of human rights. 21