not have done more. We agree with that conclusion of the First Instance Division. 78. Accordingly, the Appellant fails on Issue No.3. ISSUE No.4: whether the First Instance Division erred in law when it refused to award costs against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Respondents in the circumstances. We remind ourselves that at the Scheduling Conference of the Appellate Division, the Appellant abandoned the issue of costs against the Republic of Rwanda, which had deposited its declaration while the Reference was still pending before the First Instance Division. Nonetheless, the Appellant still maintains his prayer for costs against the 1st, 2nd, 3rdand 5th Respondents which have not yet made their declarations. In view of our findings, we see no reason to award costs in this Appeal. On the contrary, we associate ourselves with the First Instance Division’s finding that the case, being one of great public interest, would be inappropriate to order any Party to pay the costs of the other. Issue No.5: Whether the Appellant is entitled to the remedies sought. 79. In its prayer for reliefs, the Appellant sought this Court to make the following orders, namely, that the Court:(i) uphold the First Instance Division’s holding that this Court has jurisdiction to ensure adherence to the law in the 26