17. Before addressing whether the that issue, Reference and we the must Motion dispose have of the question been overtaken by events and whether the Applicant is best suited to be enjoined as an intervener or be called as an expert witness. 18. With tremendous repect to Ms. Mutesi, both issues require not more than the following answers:i) We perused the Reference November, 2014, Ms. Mutesi Conference called under the have issue indeed an Amended of the of Court, note party to that a the Reference Reference On was was in it are therefore in this Ruling determine whether on 6th Scheduling that day, raised and amended and Reference was filed on 7th January, issues for determination cannot was we Rule 53 of the Rules. of amendment by leave and 2015. The still live and we it has or has not been overtaken by events; and ii) As to whether the Applicant intervener or expert witness, should have come in as the matter is irrelevant. an It has applied to be granted leave to join as an amicus curiae and that other. is the Attorney matter General’s determine save indeed expert an to be determined preference that it is is not obvious in HIV/AIDS and an that related no issue the for The us to Applicant is issues,a matter we shall touch on later in this Ruling. 19. Having said determined, so what and turning back considerations to the should single a Court issue take to be into APPLICATIONS No.3 OF 2015 Page 7