“where there is a right, there is a remedy,” comes into the equation. To me, the tragic circumstances in which the Respondent’s son lost his life and caused the Respondent all that pain and anguish is an obvious wrong that cries out loudly for a remedy – see Bello V. A.G., Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt. 45) 828, wherein Oputa, JSC, aptly said: Holt, C.J, in the now famous case of Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Ld Raym 939 postulated the principle that “if the Plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have the means to vindicate it, and a remedy, if he is injured in the enjoyment or exercise of it; and, indeed, it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy: for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium is simply the Latin rendition of the above principle. The maxim is so fundamental to the administration of justice that where there is no remedy provided either by the common law or by statute, Courts have been urged to create one.” Per AMINA ADAMU AUGIE, JSC in NEPA V. MALLAM MUHAMMAD AUWAL (2022-LCER-46637-SC) at Pp. 29 – 30, Paras. G-B.