 Article 1 of the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)  Article 2 (3) a,b,c of the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)  Article 14 (1) of the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)  Article 1(2) of the United Nations’ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)  Article 26 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT)  Article 27 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) LEGAL ANALYSIS BY THE COURT 22. During the course of the hearing the Plaintiff on his on motion prayed to the Honorable for the Second Respondent to be struck out. By order of this Court the Second Respondent was accordingly struck out. 23. The Court, having heard both sides and the pieces of evidence in support of their case considers that the issue for determination is: “Whether or not the Plaintiff’s action is statute barred”. 24. The Court observed that the Defendant in his defence made several submissions by way of objection to the Plaintiff’s case. One such major objection is that the claim by the Defendant is statute barred and therefore this Court cannot entertain such an action. Since this submission goes to the root of the Plaintiff’s case the Court considers it as a pivotal point and worthy of determination as it borders on jurisdictional issues. To determine whether the action is brought within the statutory limit or not, the Court examined the claim by the Plaintiff, the defence to the Plaintiff’s case and the response by the said Plaintiff to the Defendant’s case. 25. In pursuit of his claim the Court notes that the Plaintiff submitted that the land in question was forcefully acquired by the British Colonial Administration in 1897 from his grandparents. The Plaintiff further stated that he instituted an action in the High Court of Benin City, Nigeria in 2013 over ninety-eight (98) years from the date of the said compulsory acquisition but the Court adjudged that the Plaintiff’s claim was out of time. The Plaintiff then appealed in the Court of Appeal and the appeal is still pending. 26. We recognise the issue before us and realise that this Court has in the past been faced with questions of law dealing with statutory limitation and has dealt with it promptly on a case by case basis. The resultant effect is that the trend has not remained on a threshold but has moved on to accommodate exceptions. The Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 article 9 (3) states that: “Any action by or against a Community 5