the Applicant was dispossessed of its properties both moveable and immovable and prevented from operating its business. 65. Since these allegations of interference is uncontroverted by the Respondent, the Court holds the Applicant has proved that the Respondent interfered with the quiet enjoyment of the possession of the said property. c) That the interference was in accordance with the appropriate laws. 66. In addressing whether the Respondent acted in accordance with the Law when it confiscated the Applicants property, it is necessary to recall the provision of Article 14 of the Charter and 17 of the UDHR upon which this application is premised. Article 14 of the Charter provides: “The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws.” Emphasis ours 67. The European Court of Human Rights has held that “An essential condition for interference to be deemed compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (which is in pari-material to Article 14 of the ACHPR) is that, it should be lawful: the second paragraph recognises that States have the right to control the use of property by enforcing “laws”. Furthermore, any interference by a public authority with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions can only be justified if it serves a legitimate public (or general) interest.” See GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA (Application no. 36862/05) STRASBOURG 12 May 2015, 68. The Court aligns itself with the above findings and state that the import of this Article 14 is three fold: 1) it places obligation on State Parties to respect and protect the right to property of all and ensure a peaceful enjoyment of this right. 2) However the right is not absolute, it accommodates the interference by the State of the peaceful enjoyment of property based on recognised law domestic or international. 3) The right to interfere is equally not absolute as it provides two safeguards in its exercise as follows: a) The interference must 22