for fair processes and appropriate procedural safeguards to ensure protection against
arbitrary action by State and be in conformity with the rule of law. See JUSTICE PAUL
UUTER DERY& 0RS v. THE REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA unreported ECW/CCJ/JUD/17/19 Pages
24-25 and JAMES V UNITED KINGDOM (1981) APPLICATION NO. 8793/79, JUDGMENT OF
21 FEBRUARY 1986, para. 67.
87. In considering whether the alleged interference is in accordance with the law,
the Court must first identify the law under which the Respondent acted before
subjecting it to the legality test. The totality of the Respondent’s testimony is
dedicated to disclaiming the right of the Applicant to the disputed property with no
details of the auction process. The only details of the process leading to the grant of
the loan and auction is gleaned from the statement of the Applicant to the effect that
one Sear Diop a staff of the Bank fraudulently presented a proxy letter purportedly
issued by the Applicant to obtain a loan from the Bank which was secured with the
disputed property. The default in repayment then led to the auction of the said
property to one Salamata Siama. The Respondent agrees only to the fact the disputed
property was auctioned to one Salamata and no more. There is no indication as the
person to whom the loan was given, the value of the loan, the law under which the
auction was carried out and more.
88. While the law under which the Bank acted is not disclosed, the Court takes
judicial notice of the banking laws that authorizes a lending bank in the event of a
default to dispose of any asset used to secure a loan. Nevertheless, there remains the
unanswered question of the auction of the property without the authority of the
owner. The Bank recognises that the proxy document is not able to pass a valid title,
reason why the notice of the auction was pasted at the town hall ostensibly for the
attention of the owner whom the Respondent claims is not the Applicant. Since the
33