- 10 - 6.1.28. An Order directing the restitution and payment of US$300 Million damages to the Plaintiffs as Exemplary Damages against the Defendants for the losses suffered over the violation of their rights. 6.1.29. An Order of this Court compelling the confiscation and deposition into Court the sum of N21.27 Billion Presidential Campaign Fund as illegally accepted by and in possession of the 3rd and 4th Defendants and due sanctions thereof. 6.2. PROCEDURE 6.2.1. The initiating Application (Document number 1) was lodged in this Court on January 23, 2015 and was accordingly served on the Defendants. 6.2.2. The Defendants filed their respective Statements of Defense in response to the Originating Application, raising several very important issues of both law and fact. In addition to their Statements of Defense, the Defendants respectively filed Preliminary Objections to the suit of the Applicants, challenging this Court’s jurisdiction and competency to entertain this suit, as well as questioning the Applicant’s own ability to bring this suit, and requesting this Court to dismiss this suit. 6.2.3. It is a general principle of law that all courts, including the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, when their competency or jurisdiction is called into question, must stop everything and determine its own competency or legal authority to hear the particular case. This case presents no exception to this fundamental principle of law. 6.2.4. “The issue of jurisdiction is serious and exceptional in all matters so much that it cannot even be compromised by parties or the court. Parties cannot individually or by consent or agreement confer a right on an issue bordering on jurisdiction. The competence of a court to adjudicate upon a matter is a legal and constitutional prerequisite without which a court is a lame duck. Courts are creatures of statutes and their jurisdiction is confined, limited and circumscribed by the statutes which created them. A court cannot in essence give itself or expand its jurisdictional horizon by misappropriating or misconstruing statutes.” EFCC vs. Ekeocha (2008) 14 NWLR (pt.1106) 161 CA, at 178.