therefore, we are satisfied that this Court does have jurisdiction to entertain the Reference. We so hold. 32. With regard to the question of time limitation, it is not in dispute herein that Act No.1/26 was enacted on 15" September 2014, neither did the Applicants enactment. claim to have been unaware of the said date of It would appear that the crux of the matter is whether or not the provisions of Rule 3(1)(d) of the Court's Rules of Procedure apply equally to time lines set by the Treaty as to those set by the Rules themselves or by Court Order. Rule 3(1)(d) provides: “Any period of time fixed by these Rules or by any order of the Court for doing any act would otherwise shall be reckoned as follows: (d) if a period Sunday or an official holiday, end on a Saturday, it shall be extended until the end of the first following working day.” 33. On the other hand, Article 30(2) provides: “The proceedings instituted action day provided within two complained in which it for in this months of the Article enactment of, or in the absence came to the shall thereof, knowledge be ... or of the of the complainant, as the case may be.” 34. The Court's Rules were promulgated 42(1) of the Treaty. It reads: ‘The Court subject to which regulate the shall, detailed Consequently, Reference No.1 5 of 2014 conduct under the provisions of Article Court shall the of make provisions the business of rules of the the Treaty, of the Court.’ the Court’s Rules derive their legality and legitimacy Page 13