vii) If the answer re above is in the affirmative, Whether the Applicant is entitled to the reparations claimed. Issue 1 - Whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear the Application. 30. While this is not in contention in line with its practice the Court will first consider whether it is clothed with jurisdiction to consider this Application. Article 9 (4) of the Supplementary Protocol provides as follows. “The Court has jurisdiction to determine cases of violation of human rights that occur in any Member State.” As a general rule, jurisdiction is inferred from the Applicant’s claim and in deciding whether or not this court has jurisdiction to entertain the present action, reliance has to be placed on the facts as presented by the Applicant. See Chude Mba Vs Republic of Ghana ECW/CCJ/RUL/14/13. 31. The Applicant alleged that the Respondent granted it authorization to establish 5 different schools in Niamey subject to certain conditions but unlawfully confiscated the said schools based on an inspection which allegedly found it in contravention of the grant condition without availing him the report to allow a response or defence. The Applicant filed the instant case alleging the violation of its right to property contrary to Articles 14 of The Charter & 17 of the UDHR. 32. In this instant, the Court has established in its jurisprudence on jurisdiction that an applicant needs only to invoke the violation of his/her human rights, as provided by regional and international human rights treaties, and the Court will assume jurisdiction over the application. This was held in several decisions of the Court including, Bakare Sarre v Mali (2011) CCJELR pg. 57; Serap v.FRN & 4 Others ECW/CCJ/JUD/16/14; and Dr. George S. Boley v The Republic of Liberia & 3 Ors. ECW/CCJ/JUD/24/19. In Kareem Meissa Wade v. Republic Of Senegal, ECW/CCJ/JUD/19/13, at pg. 259 Para. 95 (3) this Court held that, “Simply invoking a human rights violation in a case suffices to establish the jurisdiction of the Court over that case.” 11