(see Owners of Motor Vessel ‘Lillian S’ vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd 1989 [KLR)1). 32. Indeed, this Court has in the past ruled that it has no jurisdiction in a number of cases including: a) Modern Holdings Ltd (EA)Ltd vs. Kenya Ports Authority, Ref. No.1 of 2008 where the court stated that it had no jurisdiction because the Respondent could not be properly sued since it was not a surviving institution of the former East African Community to be sued within the contemplation of the Treaty. b) Mtikila vs. Attorney General of the United Republic of Tanzania (supra) where the court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an application filed to seek an annulment of elections held by the National Assembly of Tanzania. 33. None of the above situations can properly be invoked in the instant case. This is because the Applicant has specifically alleged that the Respondents’ actions or indeed alleged inactions are an infringement of Articles 5, 6. 7(2), 8(1)(c), 23, 27(1), 30, 33, 126, 130 and 131 of the Treaty and this Court can properly interrogate that complaint within its Treaty – given mandate and whether indeed the complaint is meritorious is not a matter of jurisdiction per se. 34.Turning back to the issue whether this Court can purport to interprete the provisions of other Treaties, the issue is simple and portends no difficulty at all because jurisdiction is conferred by ‘a statute, charter or commission under which a court is constituted’. In the case of this Court, the Treaty confers jurisdiction and we have explained above in what instances and specifically under Article 30.The same Article denies jurisdiction in other instances but where violation of it is alleged, the Court cannot shy away from its jurisdiction 19 | P a g e