to court without being notified to appear and take his plea or given an opportunity to be heard. From the facts before us as it relates to fair hearing, it can be rightly said that the plank in which the Plaintiff hinges the violation of this right is shaky. It is well settled that one cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand. It goes without saying that the burden of proving the violation of this right and establishing all the ingredients of the said violation lies on the Plaintiff. This has not been discharged. In the instant case, the Plaintiff has failed to establish how this right was violated. No evidence to prove that he was charged to court without being heard or that he sued the Defendants before the National Court and was still not heard. What needs to be canvassed is the regularity or legality of the alleged seizure of the Plaintiffs property and to ascertain whether it was proportionate and regarded as necessary for achieving the aim. The principle of legality is a fundamental aspect of all international human rights instruments and indeed the rule of law in general. It is a basic guarantee against the state’s arbitrary exercise of its powers. For this reason, any restriction on human rights must be “provided” or “prescribed” by law. 21