interpreted. It covers a range of economic interests which include: movable or immovable property, tangible or intangible interests, such as shares, patents, an arbitration award, the entitlement to pension, the right to exercise a profession, a landlord’s entitlement to rent, the economic interests connected with the running of a business.” See CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY (Application no. 38433/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 June 2012. This definition was also adopted in the case of REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF ASSOCIATION OF FORMER TELECOM EMPLOYEES OF NIGERIA Vs FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & Ors ECW/CCJ/JUD/20/19 UNREPORTED 59. The Court notes that both Parties admitted in their pleadings that the Respondent State granted land to the Applicant to carry out its business activities, which includes the creation, management and development of private primary and secondary schools. Further that it made significant developments on the land. So the crux of the matter at hand is hung on moveable and immoveable effects. There is no doubt that the Respondent as the Government which has a long life ownership on land within its territory, granted a provisional right of occupancy to the Applicant, which legally conferred proprietary interests in the land and all fixtures thereupon on the Applicant for the duration of the grant. No matter how provisional the tenure of a grant of lease over a property is, the lease interest which is intangible and all upgrades on that land which is tangible confer a proprietary right and remain active so long as the grant of lease subsist. 60. The Court therefore rejects the argument of the Respondent that provisional tenure on a property cannot confer ownership. At the time of the encroachment, the Applicant’s proprietary interest was still active and will remain so until the grant of lease is effectively revoked in compliance with the proviso in Article 14 of the Charter. The Respondent having not denied the claim of ownership of the investments and upgrade enumerated by Applicant, obviates the Applicant from further proof thereof. See DOROTHY CHIOMA NJEMANZE & 3 ORS V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/08/17 @ page 31. 61. The Court finds that the Applicant has established the right of ownership over various listed buildings constructed upon the land and all other 20