regulation, directive, decision or action is unlawful or is an infringement of the provisions of this Treaty; 2.The proceedings provided for in this Article shall be instituted within two months of the enactment, publication, directive, decision or action complained of, or in the absence thereof, of the day in which it came to the knowledge of the complainant, as the case may be; 3. The Court shall have no jurisdiction under this Article where an Act, regulation, directive, decision or action has been reserved under this Treaty to an institution of a Partner State.” 29. The Respondents have urged the point that since the Court’s jurisdiction is limited to “the interpretation and application of the Treaty”, no jurisdiction is conferred on it to interpret other Treaties or international instruments such as the Charter and the Protocol. That may well be true but, with respect, the Respondents have completely misunderstood what jurisdiction is in the present context. 30. Jurisdiction is quite different from the specific merits of any case and their arguments on this point will best be addressed when dealing with issue No.5: whether the delay in depositing declarations is an infringement of the Treaty. 31. As it is, it should be noted that one of the issues of agreement as set out by the parties is that there are triable issues based on Articles 6, 7, 27 and 30 of the Treaty. That is correctly so because once a party has invoked certain relevant provisions of the Treaty and alleges infringement thereon, it is incumbent upon the Court to seize the matter and within its jurisdiction under Articles 23, 27 and 30 determine whether the claim has merit or not. But where clearly the Court has no jurisdiction because the issue is not one that it can legitimately make a determination on ,then it must down its tools and decline to take one more step18 | P a g e