family for instance, his mother, father, sister or brother; neither is there evidence of an authorization by the Parishioners who are alive to institute this action on their behalf. 46. 1st Applicant testified that “my properties” were destroyed. To the extent that this is an allegation of a personal loss, the 1st Applicant prima facie is qualified to be a victim. The Court in interpreting Article 9 (4) of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol on the Court will allow a mere allegation of a violation of an Applicant’s human rights to invoke its jurisdiction. In Kareem Meissa Wade v. Republic of Senegal, ECW/CCJ/JUD/19/13, at pg. 259 Para. 95 (3), this court held that: “Nevertheless, that simply invoking human rights violation in a case suffices to establish the jurisdiction of the Court over that case. The Court will therefore not shut him out at this stage. The Court thus holds that 1st Applicant has the locus standi to bring this case only as it relates to his claim of destruction of his property and will be heard on merit. 47. Having held Supra 73 that 1st Applicant being a victim has the locus standi to seek relief for the loss of his property, the Court will now analyze the fact to decide if the 1st Applicant has proved his claim. Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights guarantees the right to property to which the 1st Applicant claims and it provides: “The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of the Community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws”. The first requirement to establish a claim of the violation of this right is the definitive identification /description of the said property. The Court has no record of the description of the property, their location, proof of ownership and their value. General averment that “my properties” were destroyed will not avail a relief. Which property will the court grant a relief; a car, a building, a motorbike or a farmland? The consequence of the ambiguous reference to “my properties” is that the Applicant has failed to substantiate his interest in the said property and therefore his claim to the violation of his right therein fails and the Court so holds. 48. Additionally, 1st Applicant testifies that some “Yam barn and foodstuff” were destroyed. Again, this is a nebulous claim devoid of any particulars sufficient 20