105. With regards to the claim for furniture amounting to the sum of five hundred and seventeen million, five hundred and seventy-seven thousand five hundred CFA Francs (517,577,500 CFA F), the Applicant pleaded that the said buildings were equipped with necessary furniture for their operation to which the Respondent did not dispute either the claimed ownership or their existence. They include modern bench tables, meeting tables, desks, cabinets, armchairs, chairs, beds, refrigerators, televisions, printers, computers, photocopiers and other household appliances (washing machines, water heater, vacuum cleaner and more), others include generators and transformers. Five (5) generators with varying capacities from 250KVA, 50 KVA, 40 KVA while the (3) transformers had capacities between 400 KW to 150 KW. Others fixtures include motorized land vehicles, mini Buses and other devices. 106. The Respondent objected to the grant of the compensation claimed contending that the Applicant did not produce any valuation report in that regard. While this assertion is true, the Court is also not unmindful that upon entry into the school premises without notice, the Respondent immediately changed all the locks of the buildings therein. This effectively precludes the possibility of entry into the premises for purposes of valuation of the furniture. In the light of the total loss of physical possession and control of the school premises, the court is conscious of how difficult it is for the Applicant to substantiate this claim and the burden effectively shift to the Respondent to prove otherwise. The court relies on its previous decision wherein it held thus; “In the instant case, The Court is of the view that the rule governing the burden of proof must be relaxed, a burden which lies, in principle, on the Applicant. Considering however, that the Applicant finds himself in a nearimpossible situation of being able to produce any evidence whatsoever, the Court holds that it is only the Respondent which is a position to furnish the materials of evidence needed by the Court.” See STELLA IFEOMA NNALUE & 20 Ors Vs FEDERAL REPUBLICS of Nigeria ECW/CCJ/JUD/24/15 107. In the light of the above, the Applicant is within their right to submit the amount which in their opinion reflects the value of the furniture in question which are in respect of the 5 schools to which the Respondent granted 34