questions posed by the Appellate Division of this Court as to “when, where, why and by whom he had been detained”, he would not have filed any reference to this Court. The 1st Respondent, on his part argued, that it is obvious that the Applicant was arrested at Entebbe International Airport upon his arrival on 15 th September, 2010, by the Ugandan security officers and was, thereafter interrogated. He added that on 17th September, 2010, the Applicant was transferred to Entebbe International Airport from where he subsequently left Uganda on 18th September, 2010. The 1st Respondent averred that it is not in dispute that the Applicant filed this Reference on 30th December, 2011. The 1st Respondent asserted that the Applicant came to know the alleged violation of his rights on 15th September, 2010, the date of his arrest or on 18th September, 2010 when he left Uganda for Kenya. He further submitted that the time frame provided for under Article 30(2) of the Treaty to challenge any Act or action complained of is two months and that period must be strictly interpreted. He cited the Omar Awadh case (supra) and East African Law Society vs. the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda, the Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya and the Secretary General of the East African Community, EACJ Reference No.3 of 2011 in support of his submissions. The 1st Respondent averred that on the contrary, the arguments of the Applicant that he had never raised the issue of time limitation in his pleadings are untenable. He stated that he pleaded that the Reference was barred in law under paragraph 5 of his response to the Reference and even at the Scheduling Conference, both Parties framed an issue relating to time limitation. He asserted in addition, that even if he would have forgotten to raise that issue before, the Court could not close its eyes to such illegality. REFERENCE NO.11 OF 2011 Page 16