(US$3,000,000.00) which was deposited into its company account with First International Bank Liberia Limited. 41. The Respondent on the other hand contends that after the registration of the Applicant, it did not carry out a single business activity in Liberia from when it was register till date. Instead, the Applicant and its affiliate company Ritrak Bank accounts were between August 2012-May 2013 a period of ten (10) months, credited by inward transfers totalling USD14, 101,326.00 from Nigeria, UAE and Switzerland, whilst outward transfers totalling USD17, 095,299.00 were carried out during the same period to accounts to India, Singapore, United Kingdom, Nigeria, UAE, France and Switzerland. The Inflow and outflow of funds without any visible business activity, made the Central Bank of Liberia launched a special investigation and the investigation reveals suspicious activities in the Applicant’s account. On the 24th October 2013, Three Million Dollars (US$3,000,000.00) was again transferred into the Applicant’s account which prompted the freezing of the said account. 42. The Applicant in response to the Respondent’s defence argues that the transactions which gave rise to the transfers were legitimate and its account with First International Bank was duly opened after satisfying all legal requirements. The crux of the Applicant’s application is predicated on an alleged seizure of the sum of Three Million Dollars (US$3,000,000.00) by the Respondent on grounds of allegation of suspicious activities in the Applicant’s account. The Applicant maintained that in so doing and without legal justification, the act of the Respondent’s bank amounts to a violation of their right to property; under Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights which states that: “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.” 43. In Hissein Habre v. Senegal (2010) (CCJELR) pg. 65 the Court held that: “to decide whether or not it has jurisdiction to hear a case, it has to examine if the issue submitted deals with the rights enshrined for the benefit of the human person and arising from the international or community obligation of the state as human rights to be observed, 12