contends that the court issued Ordinance No. 71/C withdrawing the Ordinance granting the vendor’s land certificate, and that the Minister of Land Tenure annulled the said land certificate in accordance with the Decree to establish the conditions for obtaining land certificates in Cameroon. The Respondent State submits that the irregularities in the procedure through which the vendor’s land certificate was obtained had consequences on the Complainant’s land certificate which lost its opposability to third parties under the same law. 99. The Respondent State submits that protection, as raised by the Complainant, indeed existed, not through remedies relating to the property but rather through a personal action for damages against the person responsible for fraud, a remedy which the Complainant failed to pursue. The Respondent State maintains that the protection of government authorities was extended to the true owner of the plot of land who brought the matter before the competent courts. Reiterating its role as a third party in this dispute, the Respondent State maintains that it would have met its obligation to protect if the Complainant had brought a case against her vendor for failing to honour the sales contract. Alleged violation of the right to adequate housing, a combined reading of Articles 14, 16 and 18 100. In refuting the argument on the violation of the right to adequate housing, the Respondent State submits that the Complainant’s claim is baseless given that the disputed land already belonged to someone else. The Respondent State maintains that the Complainant was expelled in accordance with the relevant legal provisions which also provide that any development project shall automatically belong to the owner without any compensation to be paid to the occupant. The Respondent State concludes that it has not violated any of the provisions of the African Charter given that it is a dispute between individuals. Complainant’s rebuttal 101. In response to the argument that her land certificate is illegal as a result of the fraud involved in her vendor’s land certificate, the Complainant submits that her good faith throughout the procedure has given her apparent legality. She maintains that the negligence shown by the competent authorities cannot be blamed on her and should fall under the full responsibility of the Respondent State. She concludes that in any case, the subsequent disputes 22