who now has to plead and prove any defence by a preponderance of evidence”. See FESTUS A.O. OGWUCHE v. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/02/18. 67. A claim that the Applicant’s title is defective based on a discrepancy in the first names of the parties concerned alone is inadequate in this circumstance to convince the Court to believe the Respondent’s claim that the Applicant is not the owner of the said property. In addition to the claim of the defective title, a testimony in Court by the alleged owner himself or a close family member to counter the Applicant’s claim is indispensable. In the alternative where physical appearance is impracticable, a deposition of a witness statement to that effect is vital to effectively rebut the Applicant’s claim. 68. The Court recognises the representative capacity under which the Respondent as a Member State is called upon to account for the acts of its agents, which primarily focuses on the disposal of a property allegedly belonging to Siekhe Gueye. It becomes more crucial that the testimony of the alleged owner of the disputed property is a necessary component of the totality of the Respondent’s evidence more so that the documentary evidence is equally challenged. Since the title document that the Respondent relied on is challenged, the burden shifts on them to convince the Court otherwise either by way of oral testimony of the alleged owner or via a witness statement. 69. The challenge faced by the Respondent in producing the alleged owner- Siekhe Gueye to testify is not farfetched. Having held that the aforementioned similarities can only lead to a conclusion that Siekhe and Cheikh are one and the same person, it follows that an invincible person cannot be produced. The Respondent has failed to adduce further evidence to convince the Court to believe their claim. In this 26