The above provision on right to property is not absolute under any international instrument. However, the right may be interfered with in the general interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate laws. Article 10 para 1&2 of the Harvard Draft before the senate committee on foreign relations on executives, E, G and H, 84th Congress and session, 15 (1956), para 3(a) defined ‘a “taking of property” as not only an outright taking of property but also any such unreasonable interference with the use, enjoyment, or disposal of property as to justify an inference that the owner thereof, will not be able to use, enjoy or dispose of the property within a reason period of time after the inception of such interference.’ The Plaintiff has not shown that the alleged seizure or taking of his passport is a continued one to amount to a deprivation of his right to property. More so, the plaintiff affirmed that the said passport was returned to him that same day to proceed on his journey. The alleged seizure complained of is therefore provisional as it did not prevent the Plaintiff from enjoying and using his property as he pleased of which he remained the owner. It is observed that the Plaintiff has over the years passed through the borders of the Defendant and his passport in all instances duly stamped. Two days before the incident occurred, the Plaintiff equally passed through the same border without any problems with the officers at the post. It is difficult to ascertain what will warrant 19