argument that the compliance of Act No. 1/26 with the Treaty (or the lack thereof) was a matter of Treaty interpretation, the jurisdiction of which lay squarely with thereof. He relied Mjawasi& 748 Others Kenya EACJ this Court upon the vs. under cases Attorney Articles of 27(1) Emmanuel General 30(1) Mwakisha of the Ref. No. 2 of 2010 and Samuel and Republic of Mukira Muhochi vs. Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda EACJ Ref. No. 5 of 2011 in support of his position. Mr. Ncutiyumuheto made no reference whatsoever to Act No. 1/31 in this context. 16. With regard to the question provisions support of of Rule his 3(1)(d) contention of time limitation, of this that where, deadline for filing of any pleading would be extended to the Court’s as he relied upon Rules of in present the Procedure fell on a weekend, next working day the which, in case, a such deadline in the present case, was Monday 17" November 2014. Respondent’s Submissions: 17. Conversely, this the Court's Respondent jurisdiction raised is two restricted (2) arguments. to the First, that interpretation and application of the Treaty, and does not extend to the interpretation of Partner appellate States��� Constitutions, jurisdiction Constitutional Courts. the provisions of on neither constitutional Article 27(1) as well as the following Republic of Uganda Reference No.1 5 of 2014 matters of the Court vested decided by with National in support of cases: Attorney General of the vs. Omar Awadh Attorney Plaxeda_Rugumba the Learned Counsel for the Respondent relied on argument; No. 2 of 2012; is EACJ General Appeal Treaty & 6 Others of the Republic No. 1 of EACJ Appeal of Rwanda 2012, and his vs. James Page 6