In his reply on points of law, the Learned Applicant’s counsel submitted that the counter affidavit and the accompanying annexures are all incompetent processes. The exhibits being public documents, only certified there copies are admissible under Section 104 of the Evidence Act, 2011. The exhibits being computer generated evidence were also not accompanied by a certifying document as required by Section 84 (4) (a) and (b) of the Evidence Act, 2011. The exhibits should therefore the expunged he said alongside the paragraphs 9-27 of the counter affidavit of the Respondent. He submitted further that the counter affidavit did not deny the specific depositions in the Applicant’s supporting affidavit as they are general denial lumped together which is not allowed by law. - Jukola Intl. Ltd V. Diamond Bank Plc (2016) 6 NWLR pt 1507 p 53 at 98. - Ukarie V. EFCC (2018) 14 NWLR pt 1369 p 195 at 207. - Lawu V. PDP (2018) 4 NWLR pt 1608 p 60 at 118. - UBN Plc V. Awmar Properties Ltd (2018) 10 NWLR pt 126 p 64. He finally submitted that by the principles of stare decisis, Nwobike SAN’s decision, is not only binding on this court, but also even the Supreme Court unless set aside and urge the court to grant the application. By this application, the Applicant has raised objection to the jurisdiction of this court to proceed or continue with his trial on the ground that the EFCC lacks the locus standi to prosecute him for the offence alleged against him in the charge and urge this court to decline jurisdiction, strike out the charge and consequently discharge the Applicant. Page 18 of 31