terrorism and murder offences that his clients were facing if he did not give false statement about the incrimination against the suspects, (why). It is also evident from the complaint that he was arrested, interrogated and detained by the Uganda’s Rapid Response Unit, (who). It is our considered view that the Applicant can no longer rely on Rugumba case (supra,) since he was released on 18th September, 2010. The Court was not told what prevented the Applicant to file his Reference between 18th September, 2010 and 18th December, 2010 that to say, two months as prescribed by the Treaty. We further find and hold that the Applicant cannot argue that he was not furnished with full material to crystallize his cause of action. Indeed, it has been established by this Court that an alleged infringement of the provisions of the Treaty would give rise through interpretation of the Treaty under Article 27(1) to a cause of action [See Mohochi case (supra) and Independent Medical Legal Unit case (supra)]. A cause of action is defined by the Black’s Law Dictionary as “A group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain a remedy in Court from another person.” The Applicant has complained of the violation or infringement of the aforesaid Articles of the Treaty by the 1st and 2nd Respondents. It is that infringement which constitutes a cause of action. Therefore, since he was enjoying his rights which were allegedly violated by the Respondents, the requirements to support or sustain a cause of action were enough to enable him to file a reference. Coming back to time limitation as enshrined in Article 30(2) of the Treaty, we need to say that the word “Limitation” is defined by the Black’s Law REFERENCE NO.11 OF 2011 Page 19