and some of this Courts’ jurisprudence to buttress his argument stating that limitation statute cannot apply to terminate the enforcement of a right in terms of a continuous violation of that same right. In its defense dated 13th March 2017, the Defendant merely denied all the averments in the Plaintiffs application and re-emphasized that the claims of the Plaintiff are not determinable by this Court and that the Plaintiff has not explored any means of amicable settlement with the Defendant before instituting this action. The Defendant further contends that the Plaintiff’s claim is not one of breach of fundamental rights, the application is statute barred and urged the court to dismiss the suit for lacking in merit. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 1. WHETHER THIS COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THIS APPLICATION AS CONSTITUTED AND CONCIEVED 2. WHETHER FROM THE TOTALITY OF FACTS PUT FORWARD, THE PLAINTIFF IS NOT CAUGHT UP BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION. WHETHER THIS COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THIS APPLICATION AS CONSTITUTED AND CONCIEVED. Jurisdiction is fundamental to any suit before a court. As a general rule, jurisdiction is inferred from the Plaintiffs claim and in deciding whether or not this court has 9