DETERMINATION OF THE ISSUES Issue No.1 – Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Reference Submissions 23. The question as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this Reference was raised by Counsel for the Respondent. He submitted that, in view of the provisions of Article 27(1) and (2) of the Treaty, some of the prayers and orders sought by the Applicant fall outside the jurisdiction of this Court. In this regard, Counsel asserted that prayer (a) seeking a declaration that the refusal of the Respondent to pay damages to the Applicant is an infringement of Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty and prayer (d) about costs can be entertained by the Court and granted, if proved by the Applicant. In support of his submission, learned Counsel referred the Court to the following decided cases: EACJ Appeal No.1 of 2012: The Attorney General of the Republic of Rwanda Vs Plaxeda Rugumba (Plaxeda Rugumba case) and EACJ REF. No.1 of 2007: James Katabazi & 21 Others Vs The Secretary General of the East African Community & The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda (James Katabazi case). He, however, submitted that prayer (b) seeking “a declaration that the Applicant has full right to enjoy his vested interests without any prior conditions” and prayer (c) seeking an “order that the Applicant be immediately paid the amount of BIF 1,660,498,000.00 by the Respondent” fall outside the jurisdiction of the Court as provided by Articles 27(2) and 30(3) of the Treaty, since the matter is pending before the REFERENCE No. 2 OF 2013 Page 7