relevant extract of the MOU signed on the 14th of December 2016 reads following: 83. “At the end of the negotiation an agreement was reached on these points. The Turkey party undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 67-21 of 17 June 2016 (voted at the Grand National Assembly of Turkey) for the MAARIF Foundation of Turkey to take over the Bedir and Mehriban Establishments located in Niamey in Niger….”. Emphasis ours 84. “The Nigerien party undertakes, first to withdraw or cancel the authorisations, licenses, certificates, rights and prerogatives recognized by means of the law and regulations or conventions in force (Order 96-035 PCSN of 19 June 1996 and its application Decree 201/PCSN/MEN 19 of 19 June 1996)”to Mr. Hayri AVAR acting on behalf of the Bedir Company.” 85. From the above excerpts, it is obvious that even though the MOU was signed in December 14th 2016, there was an express intention by the Respondent and The Foundation to take-over the Applicants school as far back as 17 June 2016, when the grants were still active and months before the Respondent carried out any inspection based upon which the grants were withdrawn. The MOU signifying the agreement to take over the school was concluded more than 6 months before the Applicant was issued a withdrawal letter. Though the withdrawal orders were written on the 21st of December 2016 it was not until the 28th December 2016, that the Applicant was served. 86. The act of the Respondent is nothing short of conspiracy to dispossess the Applicant of the school at all cost. This action of the Respondent in colluding with a foreign Government to confiscate the Applicant’s schools months before the inspections which allegedly disclose a misuse of the grant leading to their revocation was carried out and 6 months before the Applicant was notified of the withdraw of the grant is nothing short of gross abuse of power, exhibit of undue influence, impunity, lack of due process, travesty of justice and outright display of arbitrariness. 87. In view of the totality of the above analysis, the court finds that failure of the Respondent to prove that the Applicant contravened any condition of the grant, as well as failure to comply with Article 28 of The Decree1996 and the decision by Respondent in collaboration with a foreign entity to take over 28