Respondent knows or ought to know the owner of the property, why paste the notice of auction at the Town Hall? 89. This wise, the Respondent has spoken from both sides of their mouths so to say. The Respondent claim on one hand that the auctioned property does not belong to the Applicant and on another hand, that his claim to the property is statute barred having failed to act within time to challenge the mortgage when it came to his knowledge. In this wise the question the Respondent must answer is who really owns the property used to secure the loan? Obviously not Siekhe who is now undisputedly adjudged to be non-existent. The banking laws definitely require the existence of a land that can be linked to the mortgagor to support an auction of same. The Bank having failed to provide the owner of the auctioned property thus cannot be said to have acted lawfully. Due to the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion that the process of the grant of the loan was less than fair or transparent, and the auction was therefore arbitrary and thus not in conformity with the rule of law. 90. In this wise, the Court finds that the Respondent has not established that it acted in accordance with the law, the Court therefore holds that the Respondent is in violation of Article 14 of the Charter. Interference for public purpose or general interest of the community. 91. Even though the requirement of legality is stated as the last condition under the Article 14, the Court had earlier stated that the application of the two provisos in the Article is cumulative. This means that a violation of one is a violation of the entire provision. In this regard, the Court aligns itself with the opinion which prioritises legality of the law over the other conditions: 34