property, in particular, by the government.” BENSON OLUA OKOMBA v. REPUBLIC OF BENIN, ECW/CCJ/JUD/05/17 77. Similarly, the African Commission considered that the right to property “Includes not only the right to have access to one's property and not to have one's property invaded or encroached upon, but also the right to undisturbed possession, use and control of such property however the owner (s) deem fit.” (Communication No. 276/2003, May 2009, CENTRE FOR MINORITY RIGHTS DEVELOPMENT (KENYA) AND MINORITY RIGHTS GROUP INTERNATIONAL ON BEHALF OF ENDOROIS WELFARE COUNCIL V. KENYA, para 86. 78. In addressing the nature of actual deprivation, the Court aligns itself with the opinion in ‘Right to Property under the European Convention on Human RightsHuman Rights Handbook no 10’ wherein it was stated that, “The essence of deprivation of property is the extinction of the legal right of the owner, however, the Court will not only take into account whether there has been a formal expropriation or transfer of ownership but will investigate to see whether there has been a de facto expropriation.” 79. Indeed it is not in contention that there was an auction of the disputed property by the Bank, which was approved by the Regional Court in Dakar in favor of the said Salamatu SIAMA. The auction extinguished the legal right of the Applicant, while the registration with the change in the name and a new Title No 1823/DK ascribed to the said property, finalized the extinction of the Applicant’s right over his erstwhile property. From the above, the Court holds that Respondent interfered with the quiet enjoyment of the possession of the Applicant’s property. 30