k) AND FOR ANY OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS as the Honorable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. The Defendant on the other hand filed a preliminary objection challenging the jurisdiction of the court to entertain this matter on the grounds that the Plaintiffs main claim is seizure of his certificates and therefore not maintainable before this court, secondly, that the action is statute barred as the Plaintiffs right of action arose on the 16th June 2009, while this action was filed in the year 2015, six (6) years after the right of action had arisen. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff had 3 years within which to file its action as provided under Article 9(3) of the Supplementary Protocol. The Defendants further argued that a party seeking relief under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) must ensure that the principal relief is directly on the infringement of his rights as captured in chapter IV of the Constitution. That the Plaintiff’s main claim is not a right within the contemplation of chapter IV of the Constitution. The Plaintiff filed a reply to the Defendant’s preliminary objection wherein he stated that his substantive application is for the enforcement of his fundamental human rights and that the action is not statute barred. The Plaintiff further argued that the main application cannot be raised at the preliminary stage being the subject matter of the substantive application. The Plaintiff relied on the Supplementary Protocol 8