necessarily entail proof that the property actually belongs to Siekhe as claimed, and who else is qualified to prove same other than the one who is claimed to be the owner. The Court reiterates its earlier finding that the facts before it lend credence to a conclusion that a separate Siekhe Gueye does not exist, as Siekhe and Cheikh are one and the same person. 74. Perforce, guided by the forgoing analysis and cases, a claim by the Respondent that the Applicant is not the owner of the disputed land does not avail them. Consequently, the Court holds that the ownership of the disputed land is established in favour of the Applicant. De-facto interference with possession by the Respondent: 75. Having ruled that the Applicant’s right to the disputed property has been established, the Court will proceed to examine if indeed the Applicant’s peaceful enjoyment was interrupted. It is the submission of the Applicant that his building located at Fass Delorme Dakar was unlawfully auctioned to one Salamata Siama by the Islamic Bank of Senegal based on a mortgage fraudulently effected by using his property as a security for a loan it granted to one Saer Diop. That following the approval of the Regional Court in Dakar, the said Salamata Siama undertook the necessary official procedure and the title number was changed from 11766/DG to No 1823/DK. Additionally, the said Salamata Siama entered his property with the intension to evict and dispossess him. These facts remain uncontroverted by the Respondent. 76. In this regard, this Court laid an important dictum that, “Right to property generally implies that an owner is entitled to no interference in the enjoyment of his 29