Applicant believes that “to have ones cause heard is to be given fair hearing and accorded the benefit of a favorable judgment. That a hearing cannot be adjudged fair if the winner of the case is denied his trophy”. There is a clear distinction between a right to be heard and enforcement of the judgment of a Court. Where judgment has been delivered, it is presumed that both parties have been heard either on the merits or judgment is given in default. The right to fair hearing ends when the matter has been determined. An Applicant can only challenge this right when he can prove that this right was denied in the conduct of proceedings or at the appellate court which is not the position in the instant case. There is nothing before this court suggesting that the Applicant was denied its right to be heard at the national court to persuade this court to look into it. In ASSIMA KOKOU INNOCENT & ORS V. REPUBLIC OF TOGO JUD. NO: EWC/CCJ/APP/08/11 (2013), Para 59, this Court stressed that before it concludes on the issue of occurrence of human rights violation, the concrete proof of the fact upon which the Applicant’s based their claims must be established with high degree of certainty, or at least there must be a high possibility of the claims appearing to be true upon scrutiny. In this regard, mere allegations do not suffice to elicit the conviction of the Court. In view of the above, the Court holds that the Applicant has failed to establish concrete evidence in support of its allegation of violation of the right to fair hearing. The Applicant further allege that its right to property has been violated. The Blacks’ Law Dictionary, 9th Edition has defines property in its widest sense to include all a persons’ legal right of whatever description. A man’s property is all that is his in law. This usage, however, is obsolete at the present day, though it is common enough in the older books…. In a second and narrower sense, property includes not all a person’s rights but only his proprietary as opposed to his personal rights. The former constitutes his estate or property while the latter constitutes his status or personal condition. In this sense, a man’s land, chattels, shares, and the debt due to him are his property but not his life or liberty or reputation…” Property has also been defined in the case-law of both the European and the InterAmerican Courts of Human Rights as any vested right or any object capable of having value. In the case of the MAYAGNA (SUMO) AWAS TINGNI COMMUNITY V. NICARAGUA (Judgment)Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Series C no. 79 (31 August 2001), para. 144: Property was defined as “ those material things which can be possessed, as well as any right which may be part of a person’s patrimony; 8