trial of the Applicants pending the hearing and the determination of Reference No. 4 of 2011 before this Honorable Court. c) The time lag for institution of this Reference as prescribed by Article 30 (2) of the Treaty be condoned by extension of time and the Reference be deemed to be within time. d) The costs of and incidental to this Application abide the result of Reference No.4 of 2011 lodged with this Honorable Court``. 3. At the hearing of the matter, the Applicants dropped prayers (c) and (d), and maintained prayers (a) and (b) relating to fees and injunction, respectively. 4. However, in opposition to the Application, the Second Respondent (Attorney General of Uganda) raised a preliminary objection on limitation of time. He contended that the Reference on which this Application is based is itself out of time, consequently the Application is time barred. The First Instance Division on 1st December 2011, concluded that the alleged Treaty violations complained of in the Reference, were continuous; could not be subjected to mathematical computation of time; and that, therefore, the Reference was properly lodged before it. Accordingly, that Court disallowed the objection. 5. Aggrieved by the above decision, the Appellant (Attorney General of Uganda) lodged an appeal to this Appellate Division on 17th February 2012, based on only one ground of appeal as framed in the Memorandum of Appeal, namely: “that the First Instance Division erred in law in finding that Reference No. 4 of 2011 was not time barred and was properly before the Court”. 6. The Appellate Division of this Court is mandated under Articles 23 (3) and 35A of the Treaty and Rule 99 of the East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, to hear and dispose of this appeal. 3