2016 notified the Applicant of the withdrawal of the said licenses and consequently the final closure of the said establishment. 20. In its further arguments, the Respondent stated that the State granted private developers of schools and other lands on provisional basis and that provisional tenure on a property cannot give rise to ownership of property. Consequently, the withdrawal of the licenses led to the immediate revocation of the provisional tenure on the lands and outright extinction of any proprietary right of the Applicant over the property. 21. The Responded however confirmed that the Applicant filed an appeal before the prime Minister for the annulment of the said Orders of withdrawal as well as an application for interim suspension of the Orders before the President of the litigation Chamber of the Council of State. Further that sequel to the said applications, a suspension order No 05/17 was rendered on the 4th of January against which the Respondent has appealed. 22. The Respondent concluded that it has an oversight mission to offer every citizen the right to education and is therefore obliged to ensure the continuity of the public service provided partly by the Applicant through teaching and instruction activities to the students. Consequently, the Respondent urged the Court to find that there was an overriding public need and interest, which informed its action and the Applicant’s action should therefore be dismissed. Orders sought by the Respondent State 23. The Respondent prayed the Court to, a. Declare inadmissible the Application of the Applicant for lack of locus standi; b. Declare inapplicable the African Charter and UDHR in the instant case; c. Declare as unfounded the violation of the rights invoked; d. Reject the application for compensation filed, in alternative award a lump sum to the Applicant; e. Make an order on the amount of recoverable costs; f. Order the Applicant to bear its own costs. Applicant’s Response to Respondent’s Defence 8