the Applicant’s school under condition that manifestly lacks due process is an interference that is not in accordance with the Law. The Court therefore holds that the Respondent is in violation of the right to property of the Applicant as guaranteed in Article 14 of the Charter. c) Proof that the encroachment was for public purpose or general interest of the community. 88. Even though the requirement for legality is stated as the last condition under the Article 14, the Court has earlier stated that the application of the 2 provisos in the Article is cumulative. That is, a violation of one is a violation of the entire provision. In this regard, the Court aligns itself with the opinion below which prioritises legality of the law over the other condition: “Should the Court establish that the interference with the property right was not in accordance with the Law, it does not need to consider legitimacy of the state objectives or the issue of proportionality. In this case, there will automatically be a violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention which is (pari material with Article 14 of the Charter) and it will be unnecessary for the Court to even consider whether such unlawful interferences pursued a legitimate purpose” (Right to Property under the European Convention on Human Rights- Human Rights Handbook no 10 page 15) 89 Based on the above, and having held that the interference by the Respondent is unlawful and thus not in accordance with the Law, the Court will accordingly not proceed to examine whether it meets the requirement of public purpose. 90. Issue 6- Whether the expropriation of the Applicant’s properties without a fair and prior compensation violates the Applicant’s right to property. The case of the Applicant is that following the expropriation of its properties no compensation was paid prior to and thereafter the act, consequently it claimed that its right to property was violated by the Respondent who did not controvert this allegation. 29