serious problems for itself in the execution of its mandate. The 2nd Respondent is still concerned that this would create a very dangerous precedence where any individual in the region of millions and millions would bring any human right issue before this Honourable Court, including those pending before national courts of Partner States especially those who are politically motivated (sic) …….” Our view, with respect, differs considerably with that stated above by the 2nd Respondent. We say so because the EACJ is one of the organs of the EAC established by Article 9(1)(e) of the Treaty. Article 27 of the Treaty grants locus standi to “any person who is resident in a Partner State” to bring for determination to the court ,but within the mandate and jurisdictional parameters created by the Treaty, any matter regarding alleged breach of the Treaty. Whether the residents come in small numbers or in millions, is not a matter for the court to be overly concerned with. What should concern it is whether any Partner State has breached any provision of the Treaty and whether a remedy is available to the resident/Applicant. It would be expected that when the Court rules in favour of a particular resident/Applicant, the effect REFERENCE NO.8 OF 2010 Page 29