violate any rule, nor did he commit any abuse of authority. He submits that the rules of OHADA relating to seizure for protection-of-security, did not put the Benin Courts under any obligation to grant a preliminary hearing to a debtor who is the victim of such seizure, before issuing the seizure Order. He relies on the provision of the governing law. Article 54 of Acte Uniforme de l'OHADA, on methods of enforcement, thus: " Any individual whose debt appears legitimate and founded on principle, may, by application, request the competent Court of the local area or of the home address of the debtor, the authorisation to impose a measure of protection-for-security on all the movable properties (physical and non-physical) of the debtor, without prior orders, if such measure of protection justifies any circumstances likely to jeopardise the recovery of the debt." Also, Article 56 further provides inter alia that: "Seizure for protection-of-security may affect all movable properties, corporeal and non-corporeal. It renders them unavailable." Article 59 stated the condition applicable that: "The decision authorising a seizure for protection-of-security, must, subject to the risk of being invalidated, state the amount of money for which the guarantee the measure of seizure was being of authorised, and indicate the nature of the properties being targeted for seizure> 5