by an individual or corporate bodies. it is conclusive therefore that the sum of Three Million Dollars (US$3,000,000.00) credited into Dexter Oil Limited Bank account with the First International Bank Liberia, is the property of Dexter Oil Limited. It will be recalled that the Applicant insists that the said cash deposited into its accounts via bank transfer from a Nigerian bank is Dexter Oil’s Property and claims that, the freeze order and refusal by the respondent to release the said sum of money is a violation of its rights to own property. 81. The Respondent provided documentary evidence to the Court to dispute the ownership claim of the Applicant by a way of letters of demand by AMNI International Petroleum Development Limited, another corporate legal entity laying claim to the same money on the grounds that it was erroneously transferred to the Applicant and demands a reparation of the money. The Applicant on the other hand, did not controvert these claims but rather maintains that, it explains the source. 82. On the face of it, the money can be said to be the Property of Dexter Oil Limited, however it is trite that the basic requirements that confers the right of property is the ability to establish or proof ownership by the title deeds and other documentary evidence. Since the ownership of the said property is under contention, the inability of the Applicant to prove ownership robs the company of any proprietary right to the disputed sum of money. Even where the Applicants claim of ownership is substantiated, it is trite that the right to property in Article 14 of the ACHPR is not absolute as it may: ” be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws”. The above exception accommodates interference of peaceful enjoyment of property in the appropriate conditions. 83. In GOGITIDZE AND OTHERS v. GEORGIA (Application no. 36862/05) STRASBOURG 12 May 2015, the ECHR, held that: “An essential condition for interference to be deemed compatible with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (which is in pari-materia to Article 14 of the ACHPR) is that, it should be lawful: the second paragraph recognises that States have the right to control the use of property by enforcing 23