20. Clarifying Counsel his submission argued on this issue that whereas before the Court, Learned Rule 3(1)(d) of the Court’s Rules was applicable to time lines set by the said Rules or by Court Order, it was inapplicable to time frames that were set by the Treaty. Court’s Determination: 21. We have carefully considered the pleadings of both as their respective arguments in submissions. observe that beyond the allegations made was made to address having been enacted law would 30(2) us on Act No. run afoul of the two-month on We are constrained to in the Reference, no effort in submissions. Clearly, in 2013, any purported action in respect of that of the Treaty. question 1/31 Parties, as well limitation As quite of time limit prescribed rightly argued time was well by Mr. settled in Article Kayobera, in the Independent Medico Legal Unit (supra) in the following terms: “The Treaty does not contain any provision enabling the Court to disregard the time that does Article 30(2) limit of two not recognize (2) months any and continuing breach or violation of the Treaty outside the two months after a relevant action comes to the knowledge of the complainant.” 22. We are most respectfully bound by the foregoing decision therefore, find any claim in respect of Act No.1/31 time barred. and do, In any event, it is abundantly clear from the prayers in the Reference that the law that is in issue in this Reference is Act No. 1/26. Consequently, it is to a consideration of the issues raised in respect of that law that we now revert. Reference No.1 5 of 2014 Page 8