ought to have been pasted on the disputed property whereby it will get to the attention of the owner wherever he resides. The Town Hall is not a site of regular visit by residents of a town and peradventure the Applicant has no business in the Town Hall (which turns out to be so) how is he expected to be acquainted with the notice and prepare for his defence? 102. The Court finds that service on the wall of the Town Hall is not service on the Applicant. As earlier stated the Court reiterates its concern on the integrity of both the mortgage and auction processes. The Applicant having not been given prior notice of the case wherein his interest is implicated, the Court holds that the Respondent is in violation of the right to fair hearing of the Applicant as guaranteed in Article 7 of the African Charter and Article 10 of UDHR. REPARATION. 103. The Applicant prayed the Court to grant the following remedies and reparations. a) To adjudge and declare that Senegal has violated Articles 9, 15 and 91 of its constitution; b) To adjudge and declare that Senegal breached Articles 7 and 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights; c) To hold that Senegal has violated, Articles 10 and 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; d) To order Senegal to pay the Applicant 80 million FCFA for pecuniary damages e) To order Senegal to pay 30 million FCFA as moral damages 39