been instituted before another international Court for adjudication. The Court will only address the first condition which is relevant to the Respondent’s objection that is; the Applicant lacks locus standi because being a corporate entity it cannot be a victim of human right violation which only human person can lay claim to. 38. With regards to "Locus Standi” it has been defined by the Court as the interest to institute proceedings in a Court of law or to be heard in a given cause. In other words, the strict application of locus standi denotes that a Plaintiff wishing to sue must have sufficient interest in the subject matter in order to have a standing to litigate same. See FEDERATION OF AFRICAN JOURNALISTS & 4 ORS V. REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/04/18 @ pg.17 39. The Court has also expressed its opinion that the law of locus standi to sue relates to the propriety of a litigant to institute an action. The standing focuses on the right of the party in the matter, either in terms of injury suffered or special interest possessed which is worthy of protection. See THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC RIGHTS & ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT (SERAP) & 10 ORS V. THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA & 4 ORS ECW/CCJ/JUD/16/14 @ page 17. 40. In the instant case the Applicant averred that it was granted authority to establish 5 different schools on land provided by the Respondent pursuant to which it made huge investment in the construction of many amenities to bring the school to international standard. Without notice or compensation, the schools were confiscated by the Respondent. These claims remain uncontroverted by the Respondent. The Applicant has obviously established a sufficient interest in the said property worthy of protection and thus has the standing to bring this application. 41. The objection of the Respondent that the Applicant lacks locus standi is premised on the fact that it is a legal person which is not contemplated within the ambit of Article 10 (d) of the supplementary Protocol. In essence only natural persons can access the Court for violation of their human rights. The Court has put to rest the argument proffered by the Respondent and established that corporate bodies such as the Applicant in the instant case has 13