particular case has to be considered in determining whether or not the Applicant is caught up by the statute of limitation. Article 9 (3) of the Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 provides: “Any action by or against a community Institution or any member of the Community shall be statute barred after three (3) years from the date the cause of action arose.” The Defendant contends that by virtue of Article 9 (3) above, the Plaintiffs action is statute barred. Defendant further states that the cause of action arose in April 2009 and the present action was instituted in March 2015, 6 years after the cause of action arose. The Plaintiff on the other hand maintains that the action is not statute barred as the violation is of a continuous nature. That his certificates up till the time of filing this suit are in the possession of the Defendant. This Court has held in a plethora of cases that the status of limitation does not arise unless the alleged violation ceases. In VALENTINA AYIKA V. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA (2011) CCJELR, the Court stated that where a violation of a right is continuous, a cause of action lies as long as the infringement persists. Similarly, in SERAP V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/12, UNREPORTED the Court in its analysis stated that their subjection to the statute of limitation depends on the characterization of the act as an isolated act or a persistent and continuous omission that lasted until the date the complaint was filed with the Court. The Court further held it trite that in situations 17