Additionally, Counsel contended that the Respondent admitted that the Applicant was put on the next available flight to Nairobi which was at 3.00pm. Counsel argued that these circumstances showed that on 13.04.2011 between 9.00am to 3.00pm the Applicant was not a freeman, he was restricted and confined in custody, away from the non permissible area at the Entebbe Airport, pending conveyance to Kenya, on the orders of the Principal Immigration Officer at the Airport. 59. Counsel referred the Court to the definition of the verb “detain” in the Advanced Learners Dictionary as “1 to keep somebody in an official place eg a police station....2. to prevent somebody from leaving or doing something....” 60. Counsel further submitted that since the Applicant’s detention was pursuant to the orders of the Principal Immigration Officer, it is the Respondent who is liable for the detention. 61. Counsel urged the Court to take judicial notice that airlines within EAC do not have security officers or places of holding persons in custody, adding that it would be improbable that the Ugandan authorities would have left the Applicant to the physical custody of an airline after labelling him a threat to the security of the peoples of the East African Community. 62. Concluding his submissions on the first part, the Counsel contended that on the balance of probabilities he had proved that the Applicant was restrained, confined and detained at Entebbe International Airport on the orders of the Principal Immigration Officer. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 31