THE RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS 19. In his Response to the Amended Reference, the Respondent on his part contended that he would raise a preliminary objection to the extent that the matters complained of by the Applicant are not issues for interpretation by this Court. Instead, that the facts complained of are questions to do with interpretation of a contract between two Parties which is a preserve of the National Courts. 20. Through his written Submissions filed on 23rd December, 2014, the Respondent submitted that the Reference does not contain any question for interpretation, or infringement of Treaty provisions and went as far to argue that the Applicant is challenging the powers of the IGG and the Attorney General of Uganda provided for under Articles 119 and 225 of the Constitution of Uganda which is outside the jurisdiction of this Court. 21. It was the Respondent’s further submission that the Applicant has attempted to use the Court as an Appellate Court to overrule the decisions of the Inspectorate of Government and the Attorney General’s legal opinion which is an abuse of process of Court as provided under Rule 47(c) of the Rules. The Respondent further argued that the facts challenged by the Applicant did not demonstrate a prima facie case of any breach of the Treaty by the Republic of Uganda or any cause of action under the Treaty. 22. In conclusion, the Respondent cited the Cases of Modern Holdings limited vs. Kenya Ports Authority, EACJ Reference No.1 of 2008 and James Katabazi & 21 Others vs. The Secretary General of the EAC and The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 11