“1.18. Even if the parties elect to waive the issue of jurisdiction arising from wrong defendants just because the said wrong defendants have joined issues; that will not remedy the fact that they are not state parties. It is trite law that parties cannot waive issues of substantial jurisdiction like proper parties. It is trite law that the Court lacks jurisdiction when wrong defendants are sued as in this case. It is also trite law that the proper order to make when Court lacks jurisdiction due to suing a wrong party is striking out and not dismissal.” “1.19. We therefore urge the Court to grant the Applicants’ reliefs sought in Document 10 and strike out the suit and not dismiss it.” 6. OBSERVATIONS 6.1. We observe that this instant case is a sister case or companion case to that of Dr. Sam Emeka Ukaegbu and Others, which we disposed of recently; see RULING Number ECW/CCJ/RUL/29/15, delivered on December 02, 2015. The two cases are identical in every respect, except as to the Plaintiffs; that is to say, the subject matter is the same, the Defendants are all the same; the issues raised as well as the claims for relief are all the same; the setting is the same, as well. The Motion to withdraw/discontinue, as well as the responses in opposition thereto, are equally identical. The Legal Counsel on both sides are the same, and their arguments are all the same. The only difference between the two cases is that of the Plaintiffs in both cases. - 25 6.2. In the cited case, the Plaintiffs/Applicants applied to this Court for leave to be allowed to withdraw and/or discontinue their case against all the Defendants. This Court granted the Application/Motion of the Plaintiffs/Applicants and ordered that the case be withdrawn and/or discontinued against all the Defendants/Respondents. The justification by the Plaintiffs for seeking the discontinuance in the cited case are the same reasons stated in this instant Motion, now subject of this Ruling. 6.3. On the basis of judicial precedence and that of stare decisis, we are constrained and inclined to similarly rule granting the Motion of the Plaintiffs for the same legal reasons stated by us in our previous Ruling in the cited case. Accordingly, the Ruling in the cited case is herein incorporated by reference and adopted as the Ruling in this instant case, as it stands on all fours. 6.4. As stated earlier, when the case was called for hearing on December 03, 2015, legal representations were respectively announced for all the parties, and