of the Treaty as well as the infringement of Article 7 of the Protocol for the Establishment of the Common Market. This Court in the aforesaid case found and held that the cause of action in the above case was based on the alleged infringement of a Partner State’s Treaty obligations which lies outside the territory of Human Rights. The Court held that the Reference fell under its jurisdiction. Moreover, during the Scheduling Conference, both Parties agreed that there are triable issues based on the provisions of Articles 6, 7, 27, and 30 of the Treaty. In view of the foregoing, we find and hold that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Reference. Issue No.2: Whether the Reference is Time-barred On whether the Reference is time-barred, the Applicant submitted that: Firstly, both the Respondents have not pleaded the limitation of time in their respective responses to the Reference; Secondly, having contested all allegations of fact and any breach or violation of the Treaty, there is no longer a substratum on which the Respondents could base the plea of time limitation, especially as a threshold issue. The Respondents are unable to state the moment when the time started to run, hence, they cannot admit any alleged violation; Thirdly, the Respondents have the onus to show what among the reliefs sought by the Applicant is time-barred; Fourthly, before being furnished with full information related to the violations complained of, the Applicant cannot be held to time limitation due to lack of full material to focus on his cause of action; Finally, the Applicant relied on Rugumba case (supra) and contended that until he had been furnished with all the information to the REFERENCE NO.11 OF 2011 Page 15