Analysis of the Court 91. The requirement of payment of compensation in cases of violation of the right to property when confiscation has been established is a catch 22 for the Respondent because whichever it swings, compensation is obligatory. In the situation where the intervention is lawful that is to say it meets the legality of the law and legitimacy of purpose, the Applicant is still entitled to compensation where development on the land can be established and ownership of same credited to the Applicant. Conversely where the interference is unlawful, it goes without saying that compensation is imperative to remedy the loss on the developments carried out on the property and other cost associated with the action of the Respondent. Furthermore, such compensation must be paid prior to the encroachment failure of which amounts to violation of the right to property. 92. Having found that no compensation was paid to the Applicant prior to or after the encroachment of its property, the Court holds that failure of the Respondent to compensate the Applicant is a violation of the right to property of the Applicant. Issue 6- Whether the Applicant is entitled to compensation as claimed 93. Having outlined the violations by the Respondent, the Applicant sought compensation in the sum of Twenty-Four Billion, Three Hundred and Five Million, Thirty-Three Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty-Two CFA Francs (CFA 24, 305, 033,982) CFA F for all the damages caused by the Respondent made up as followings: -Eighteen Billion CFA F (18,000,000,000.00 CFA Francs) for moral damages and loss of earnings; - Five Hundred and Seventeen Million, Five Hundred and SeventySeven Thousand Five Hundred CFA francs (517,577,500 CFA Francs) for furniture; 30