person. The Applicant is clearly not a human person capable of experiencing feelings associated with and exhibited by a human being such as pain and suffering. In that wise, the Court holds that the Applicant’s claim is misconceived and is therefore not entitled to compensation for moral damages. The claim for moral damages is dismissed and the Court so holds. 113. On the loss of earnings claimed by the Applicant, the Court observes that no evidence in form of audited account of the school or any other proof of earning to assist the Court in determining any loss of earning was provided. The Court will therefore not speculate in that wise. The Claim is therefore dismissed. On Costs 114. Article 66 (2) of the Rules provides thus: “The unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleading”. The Applicant urged the Court to order the Respondent to bear the cost without specifying any amount. In that wise the Court orders the Chief Registrar to assess appropriate cost. DECISION 115. The Court, after hearing all parties and reviewed all documents submitted decides as follows; i. Declares that it has jurisdiction to hear this Application; ii. Dismisses the Respondent’s Preliminary Objection on locus standi; iii. Dismisses the Preliminary Objection of the Applicant on nonconformity of the Respondent to file their defence within time. iv. Declares that the Application is admissible; 36