The Applicants urge this Court to declare that they are entitled to a refund for the buses sold by the Respondent which they alleged belong to the workers/staff of NITEL/MITEL same having been purchased from their contributions. The court has no record to substantiate the ownership of the said 250 Buses for instance the names in which the buses were purchased, their models, the license particulars. These documents should be in the custody of the Applicants as alleged owners. The only document before this Court is the letter on page 499 of the originating application addressed to the liquidation panel seeking compensation for buses valued at 1.25 billion Naira which does not in any way prove ownership. It is trite law that he who alleges must prove See (FEMI FALANA & ANOR V. REP OF BENIN & 2 ORS (2012) ECW/CCJ/JUD/02/12 pg. 34 and DAOUDA GARBA V. REPUBLIC OF BENIN (2010) CCJELR Page 12.Para 34 & 35.) Supra. Having not been able to prove the ownership of the said 250 buses, The Court declare this claim unsubstantiated and therefore fails and the Court so holds. 43. Allegation of Claim of ownership of landed property by members of the Applicants in NITEL/MITEL offices Nationwide: The Applicants claim that many of their members own landed properties within the premises of NITEL/MTEL nationwide which were sold and for which no compensation was paid. It is instructive that the properties allegedly own by members was valued at 40 billion naira in page 437 of the originating application, while same was valued at 10 billion Naira in the letter to the liquidator on page 500. Apart from the letter of request for payment of the landed properties made to the liquidators attached to the initiating application on page 437, there is no proof of ownership in the form of the certificate of occupancy, details of the size and location of the land and the specific members who are owners considering that not all the Applicants are alleged to own the landed property. As earlier noted, ownership confers right to property and in the light of the fact that the Applicants have failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate their claim for ownership of the landed properties, the allegation of violation of their right to property under this head fails and the Court so holds. 20