this Court as ultimately no specific order of value and substance can be made against him. 50. A “cause of action” has been defined to be “a group of operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing; a factual situation that entities a person to obtain a remedy in Court from another person” – Black’s Law Dictionary (supra). Spry V-P in Auto Garage vs. Motokov No.3(1971) EA 514 stated that where any essential ingredient forming a cause of action is missing, then “no cause of action has been established.” We agree and in the context of the present Reference, neither the facts nor the eventual remedy to be granted or denied would create a cause of action against the 1st Respondent and we so find. Issue No.4: Whether the Applicant has Locus Standi to present the Reference 51. The argument made by the Respondent on this is issue that the Applicant’s Reference is supported by an Affidavit sworn by one Mathias Nsubuga, who, contrary to the deposition made in that Affidavit was not the Secretary General of the Democratic Party of Uganda and his purpoted election to that position had been overturned by the High Court of Uganda in the Case of Ochieng S. C. Peter & 5 Others vs. President General Democratic Party Misc. Cause No. 217/2008. However, in the course of these proceedings, it emerged that the issue had been resolved and indeed Mr. Nsubuga was lawfully in office as Secretary General of the Applicant Political Party. 52. There was no other serious issue raised on locus standi and so the issue requires no more than a resolution in the negative as it is moot. Issue No.5: whether the delay by the 2nd and 5th Respondents to Deposit their Respective Declarations is a Violation of Articles 5, 6, 7, 8(1)(c), 126, 24 | P a g e