“Should the Court establish that 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 in pari materia 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 RIGHTSHUMAN RIGHTS HANDBOOK NO 10 PAGE 15). 92. 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 or general interest. 93. From the above analysis, the Court finds that the Respondent violated the right to property of the Applicant guaranteed by Article 14 of the African Charter and Article 17 of the UDHR. Allegation of violation of right to fair hearing. 94. The crux of the Applicant’s case is that his property was auctioned and he was not accorded the opportunity to have a say in the auction proceedings and to defend his cause having not received a hearing notice to that effect. 35