encroachment on same except in the public interest where provided by law. Applicant further argues that it has access to the Court to institute this action pursuant to Articles 10 (C) & (D) of the 2005 supplementary Protocol on the Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS. 16. Applicant further states that Articles 11, 20(a) and 21(b) of the Respondent’s 1986 Constitution also respectively guarantee the Applicant’s right of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; forbids the deprivation or seizure of a person’s property except where permitted by law. Article 22(a) of the Republic of Liberia 1986 Constitution provides that: “Every person shall have the right to own property alone as well as in association with another.” 17. Notwithstanding the above provisions of the Respondent’s Constitution, the Respondent has failed and/or refused to accord this guaranteed right to the Applicant. This is undeniably a breach of the Applicant’s right to own property. 18. The Applicant submits that, it is trite law that the reference to a person or individual in the above provisions is not restricted to living human beings but extends to corporate legal personalities. Applicant argues that this Honourable Court has held in Suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/02/09 – The National Coordinating Group of Departmental Representatives of Cocoa-Coffee Sector (CNDD) v. Republic of Cote D’ivoire (2004-2009) CCJELR 311 at 321 that: “Legal persons can institute proceedings before a legal adjudicating body, for violation of rights guaranteed by instruments relating to human rights.” 19. Applicant relies on Articles 50 and 54(2) of the Revised Treaty of the ECOWAS and argues that, the Respondent is enjoined to promote trade and investment among Community Citizens with a view to achieving economic integration of the region and the continued detention of the Applicants’ funds is antithetical to these provisions. The Applicant further contends that Respondent has not provided any justification for the detention of the said funds, as mere and unsubstantiated suspicion is not sufficient for the act of the Respondent in denying the Applicant of the use of its funds. Applicant relies on the authority of The Nigerian Supreme Court in Milton Ohwovoriole SAN v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2003) FWLR (Pt. 141) 2019 were it was held that: 5