details, same size, and same location to belong to two different people who have the same surname, same birth details and who live in same town. 61. The Court struggles to find that there exists a person named Siekhe Gueye other than the Applicant who vanished somewhere in Senegal and cannot be reached even when his property was being auctioned. The Court notes that in all these ongoing, Siekhe never surfaced to personally contest and assert his right over the disputed property. The Court is unable to conclude that the difference in the first names negates the overriding similarities in all these vital indices to confer ownership on the invincible party. As earlier indicated, the onus of proof of ownership lies on the Applicant. However, the proof of a claim is not depended solely on documentary evidence. The Court can equally reach a conclusion on circumstances inferred from facts placed before it if, on a preponderance of evidence they support the claim, the Court will give credence to its totality and make a finding for the party. 62. The Court recalls its decision wherein it held that “…before it concludes on the issue of occurrence of human rights violation, the concrete proof of the facts upon which the Applicant base their claims must be established with a high degree of certainty, or at least, there must be a high possibility of the claims appearing to be true, upon scrutiny. See ASSIMA KOKOU INNOCENT & ORS v. REP OF TOGO (2013) CCJELR pg. 201 para.59. 63. Reiterating the above, the Court further held that, “To prove an application on preponderance of evidence, the evidence adduced must have reached a high level of standards required to sustain the claim for the violation of human rights. In order to catapult the evidence to the level of high standard of proof of evidence 24