The Plaintiffs are suing the defendants for specific damages for property allegedly unlawfully confiscated by the 1st defendant and general damages for unlawful confinement, pain, humiliation and loss of income for confiscated means of production. They allege that on 11th July 2009, the Plaintiffs obtained a hunting licence and hunting permit from the relevant authority for purposes of hunting animals in a game reserve. The next day, they started hunting animals in the said game reserve where they got lost. They thus had to spend the night in the bush. On 13th July 2009, the Plaintiffs “met a game park official who accompanied Inter-Com officials, arrested and detained the Plaintiffs on the grounds that they were hunting without a permit and a licence. The Plaintiffs’ properties, including the Land Rover pick up, several guns and ammunition and other items were confiscated. After all, the Plaintiffs had all confessed to the offences charged. The compounding was done pursuant to section 90 the Wildlife Conservation Act, Cap 283 which confers on the Director of the Game the powers to compound certain applicable offences under the said section. The Plaintiffs are complaining that the 1st defendant, not being the Director of the Game, is not empowered to exercise jurisdiction under section 90 of the Act and hence, their conviction and sentencing was wrongful and unlawful. Due to alleged injuries suffered as a result of their arrest, incarceration and sentencing, the Plaintiffs have filed the present suit. The defendants herein have raised a preliminary point of law to the effect that the suit is bad in law for want of proper forum. In their submissions in reply, the Plaintiffs have objected to the manner in which the defendants’ notice of preliminary objection has been raised, saying that it did not disclose under which provision of the law it was being raised. For that reason, counsel argued that the Court has not been properly moved. He prays that the preliminary objection should be rejected.