Defendant who invited the 2nd Defendant to assist in carrying out some assignments with regard to the case. The 2nd Defendant is neither the originator of the case nor did she in any manner whatsoever contribute to the violation of the rights of the Plaintiffs directly or indirectly. At best he merely acted as an agent to a named principal; the Republic of Liberia. The principle of the law of agency provides that as long as an agent acts within the ambit of his conduct, actual, usual or ostensible, the Principal answers for any act of misfeasance or non -feasance the agent committed. It is therefore sad that the 2nd Defendant who merely answered the call of a neighbouring State for assistance should be joined in this suit. It is condemnable, irresponsible and devoid of any logic and reason. Accordingly, it is the opinion of this Court that the Plaintiffs have merely wasted the time and the scarce resources of the 2nd Defendant, it is indeed a conduct to be frowned at. Having arrived at this stage, the Court needs to consider whether from the totality of the facts and circumstances adduced by the Plaintiffs, the subject matter (or human rights) jurisdiction of this Court have been successfully invoked. In doing this, it is necessary to examine the entire cause of action. It consists of all those things necessary to give a right of action to a Plaintiff See: 20