from their monthly salaries and building of canteens in all the 36 locations where the NITEL/MTEL offices were situated. In reinforcing their claims, the Applicants placed reliance on Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17(2) & (b), 18 (2), 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29 (7), 45 (1), 60 & 61 of the African Charter as well as certain provisions of the Respondent’s 1999 Constitution (as amended). 12. For purposes of clarity, the above articles relate to the right to life, respect for dignity, right to liberty, right to be heard, freedom of movement, right to property, right to work, right to participate in the cultural life of the community, right of a family to be assisted by the state, right to equality, right to existence, right to dispose of wealth and natural resources, right to economic, social and cultural development, right to national and international peace and security, right to general satisfactory environment, the respect of rights and freedoms contained in the Charter, duties of individual towards his family, society and state and the duty to preserve and strengthen positive African cultural values respectively. 13. In considering the facts of the present application vis-à-vis the provisions relied upon, it is apparent that the bone of contention is alleged infringement on the Plaintiffs’ physical assets acquired while in the service of the Respondent and nonpayment of their emoluments and retirement benefits, in that regard the Court finds that the only relevant article from the above referred articles is Article 14 which deal with the right to property. Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights provides: “The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws” 14. In determining whether the Applicants claim entails property rights it is imperative to ask the question what is property? In other words do all the claims of the Applicant qualify to be classified as property? In CENTRO EUROPA 7 S.R.L. AND DI STEFANO v. ITALY (Application no. 38433/09) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 7 June 2012, the ECHR held that: “In considering the provisions of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Court of Human Rights, the concept of property or possession is very 7