Barred as contended by the 1st, 2nd 6th and 7th Respondents in Document 3. This suit is not statute barred because the threat complained of is in continuum.” - 18 “The 4th and 5th Defendants (Field Experts and agents of 1st, 2nd, 3rd , 6th and 7th Defendants never denied the injuries of the Applicants but simply stated at paragraph 13 of page 6 of their defence (Document 2) that “4 th and 5th Respondents aver that they are not in a position to state where and when the applicants sustained t h ei r i n ju ri es o r wh ere they co me fro m” “The 4th and 5th Defendants never denied the presence of unexploded bombs and threats associated thereto but gave excuses why they have continued to disobey the orders of this court made on the 7th day of November 2013. The earliest excuse on record was that the Nigerian Police and Ministry of Mines and Power denied them permit to acquire and deploy dynamites to destroy the bombs and the said agencies of Government had long given them all their requested permits and nothing has been done by the contractors till date. Now their latest excuse is that they are storing those lethal items because of their reasons stated at paragraph 27 of page 8 of their defense that “t h ei r case wil l b e jeo pardi zed i f th e bo mb s wh i ch are part o f t h ei r ev id en ce were des tro yed befo re th e co u rt ’s vi sit is carri ed out” “The 4th and 5th Respondents, (agents of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th Respondents) stated on oath and admitted at paragraph 6 that they actually found objects of threat; “war relics such as Abandoned Armored Vehicles, Gun Boats, Fixed Anti-Aircraft Machine Guns, One crashed Military Aircraft FROM WHICH the 4 th and 5th Respondents removed unexploded bombs, bomb sites in many places, in public b ui ldi ng ” In other words only bombs among the threats enumerated by the field experts has been removed. The Applicants contends that bombs are still found in their communities.” “The reason for our application for leave to withdrawal/discontinuance is not because the Applicants’ failed to exhaust local remedies before coming to this Court.” “The same field experts and agents of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th Respondents at paragraph 11 of the same Document 2 admitted on oath and stated as follows:“Th e 4 th and 5th Respondents partly deny paragraph (1.0.1) of page (4) of the Ap pl i cant s ’ pl ead ings and st at e th at t he 4 TH AND 5TH RESPONDENTS ARE AWARE that some individuals in the past have made COMPLAINTS to various quarters about the PRESENCE OF BOMBS IN THEIR