9. The said closure was premised on the fact that after an inspection was carried out on the schools a number of irregularities were discovered especially transactions occurred without authorization. In addition the Applicant was alleged to have put up resistance against the inspection mission. In all the Applicant was alleged to have violated Articles 4,6,8,9,15,17,18,19,21,22,23 and 28 of Decree No. 96-201/PCSN/MEN of June 1996 10. On the 30th December 2016, the Applicant having filed a hierarchical Appeal to the office of the Prime Minister for the annulment of the said Orders closed its premises pending the outcome of its appeal. Curiously, on the 31st December 2016, it observed the presence of the National Guard near the headquarters of the school and on 1st January 2017 to its consternation, a delegation from the Ministries in charge of Education with members of one Maarif Foundation of Turkey entered the premises, broke the doors and gained access into the building. After changing the keys, they took possession of all movable properties in the school and thereafter hoisted the Turkish Flag in place of that of CSP BEDIR. (EXH 30-35) Finally on the 2nd January 2017, The Foundation took over the classes within its premises and renamed the School complex as “Ecole de l’amitie Nigero-Turque” of The Foundation. All these actions was were carried out without notice or compensation 11. Being dissatisfied with the turnout of events, the Applicant sued the Respondent before the Court of Appeal of Niamey. The Court after hearing the case decided on the 4th of January 2017 that there was no prior legal proceeding against the Applicant for expropriation of its property in the interest of the public and made an order in favor of the Applicant, declaring the occupation of the Applicants property by the Respondent as manifestly unlawful and directing an immediate cessation of the act amongst others. However, the Respondent appealed this decision and before the appeal was decided, in defiance to the existing order of the Court, ordered the resumption of painting on the front walls of the property and the removal of all the distinctive signs, logos and trademarks belonging to the Applicant. The foundation thereafter continued to occupy and enjoy the use of all the movable property belonging to the Applicant. 12. Concluding its narration, the Applicant revealed that in between all these actions orchestrated by the Respondent, they transmitted to it a 4