and that fairness of the administration of justice, in addition to being substantive, should be apparent (justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done)” See, DOMBO BEHEER B. V. NETHERLANDS, ECHR No. 14448/88 OF 10/27/1999, PAR. 33). 100. The main contention of the Applicant is that he was not notified of the auction proceedings to enable him defend his cause. The Respondent maintained he was put on notice as a notice was posted on the Town Hall. Indeed a case cannot be said to be fairly heard when an interested party claims not to be aware and is adversely affected by the outcome of the proceeding. The requirement and importance of notice was underscored by the Court when it held that, “… the principle of fair hearing as encapsulated in Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights is based on the rule that an individual should not be penalised by decisions affecting his rights or legitimate expectations without being given prior notice of the case (Emphasis provided), a fair opportunity to answer and/or opportunity to present their own case” See MOHAMMED EL TAYYIB BAH v. THE RBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE JUDGMENT NO ECW/CCJ/JUD/11/15. 101. While the Respondent contended that the Applicant was notified of the case by pasting the notice of hearing on the Town Hall, the pertinent question to ask is why the Town Hall, why not on the disputed property considering that it is located within the same town as the Bank and the Regional Court of Dakar, that heard the case. Since the Respondent claims that the Applicant is not the owner of the disputed property, it can be presumed that they do not know his residence however, a notice 38