24. The Applicant, in responding to the Respondent defence that it does not
have ownership of the property expropriated, submits that ‘property’ is not
limited to land but includes other immovable fixtures thereupon as well as
other moveable assets. That it made significant developments over the land in
question which includes amongst others construction of air-conditioned
classrooms, boarding houses, laboratories, and it has proprietary rights over
them until they are extinguish through a lawful procedure.
25. The Applicant further claimed that these additional upgrades on the land
has been professionally valued at five billion, seven hundred and eighty seven
million, four hundred and fifty-six thousand, four hundred and eighty-two
CFA Francs (5, 787, 456,482) to which it is entitled to as compensation.
26. It denies violating the obligations under the grant and reiterates its prayer
for the Court to declare that the appropriation and transfer of the property
without fair and prior compensation constitutes a violation of its right to
property for which compensation for the damages ought to be awarded against
the Respondent.
The Applicant’s Objection that the defence was filed out of time.
27. In its reply to the Respondent’s defence, the Applicant raised an objection
that the Respondent’s defence was filed out of time prescribed by the Rules
of Court under Article 35 of the Rules, which provides thus;
“Within one month after service on him of the application, the defendant
shall lodge a defense…”
Article 35(2) provides as follows: “The time limit laid down in paragraph 1
of this Article may be extended by the President on a reasoned application
by the defendant”
The Applicant argued that the Respondent was served with the Initiating
Application on 10 February 2017 and their defence was filed on 14 March
2017 which is more than one month as prescribed. The Respondent having
not sought the discretion of the Court for an enlargement of time, is therefore
out of time to file its defence. Consequently, the Applicant prays the Court to
declare same inadmissible being in contravention of Article 35 of the Rules.
9