In MUSA LEO KEITA V. MALI (2004-2009) pg. 65, the court declared that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on a judgment delivered by the court of a member state. Similarly in SIKIRU ALADE V. FEDERAL REP. OF NIGERIA (2012) unreported, this Court reiterated its position in MUSA LEO KEITA V. MALI (Supra) that it does not compose itself as an appellate court over decisions of National courts. As stated above, this Court lacks the jurisdiction to sit on appeal over decisions of National Courts. Furthermore, this Court not being an enforcing body for decisions of national courts of member states lacks the capacity to compel enforcement of decisions of national Courts. In MADAM ISABELLE MANAVI AMENGANVI V. REP. OF TOGO 2012 CCJELR the Court held that it cannot go beyond its scope of competence to adjudicate on the reinstatement of the Applicants as that would amount to annulling the decision made by the Constitutional Court, an act which would be outside the purview of the Community Court of justice. The Respondents also contend that the Applicants are statute barred from instituting this action as the cause of action arose more than three years from the date of instituting this action. Article 9 (3) of the Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 provides: “Any action by or against a community Institution or any member of the Community shall be statute barred after three (3) years from the date the cause of action arose.” The Court has drawn a clear distinction in its jurisprudence as it relates to limitation status on actions that have already occurred and those that are of a continuous nature. In SERAP V. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/12, UNREPORTED the Court in its analysis stated that their subjection to the statute of limitation depends on the characterization of the act as an isolated act or a persistent and continuous omission that lasted until the date the complaint was filed with the Court. The Court further held it trite that in situations of continued illicit behavior, the statute of limitation only begins to run from the time when such unlawful conduct or omission ceases. In VALENTINA AYIKA V. REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA (2011) CCJELR, the Court stated that where a violation of a right is continuous, a cause of action lies as long as the infringement persists. 11