whose legality is disputable, to the Court under Article 30 of the said Treaty for determination and contended that the issue of jurisdiction of this Court was settled in; i)EACJ Reference No. 1 of 2006: Prof. Peter Anyang’ Nyong’o and 10 Others Vs. Attorney General of Kenya & 3 Others ii) EACJ Reference No. 3 of 2010; Independent Medico Legal Unit Vs. Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (commonly known as the IMLU case) and; iii) EACJ Reference No. 9 of 2012 – The East African Centre for Trade Policy and Law Vs. The Secretary General of the East African Community. 35.His further argument was that in all the above cases, this Court found and held that it has jurisdiction to determine matters under the Treaty notwithstanding the fact that some of the claims had the inclusion of allegations of violations of human rights. 36. Counsel observed and noted in that regard that in the instant matter, the Applicant seeks five remedies, some of which fall outside the jurisdiction of this Court and further argued that only the remedies sought under paragraphs (a), (b) and (e) of the Reference may be granted by the 15