He contended that it is the Court’s duty to interpret and apply the provisions of the Treaty and to inform itself of the relevance of provisions that may affect its decisions. In conclusion, he submitted that, the Reference was filed out of time and prayed that this Court be pleased to dismiss it with costs. As said previously, Ms. Munyi, Counsel for the 2nd Respondent did not file written submissions. Nevertheless, during the last hearing of the Reference on 18th November, 2013, she associated herself with the submissions of the 1st Respondent on the issue of time limitation. She further referred the Court to the list of Authorities, in particular the decision of the Appellate Division in Omar Awadh case (supra) where the Court held that the Treaty does not contain any provision which allows any disregard about the time limit of two months prescribed in Article 30(2). Counsel for the 2nd Respondent, therefore, urged the Court to hold the same by dismissing the Reference with costs to the 2nd Respondent. FINDINGS OF THE COURT ON ISSUE NO.2 For ease of Reference, we shall reproduce the content of Article 30(1) and (2) and analyze especially sub Article 2: (1) “Subject to the Provisions of Article 27 of this Treaty, any person who is resident in a Partner State may refer for determination by the Court, the legality of any Act, directive, decision or action of a Partner State or an institution of the Community on the grounds that such Act, regulation, directive, decision or action is unlawful or is an infringement of the provisions of this Treaty; (2) The proceedings provided for in this Article shall be instituted within two months of the enactment, publication, REFERENCE NO.11 OF 2011 Page 17