92. Thirdly, even if that power existed under Section 52, the Immigration authorities knew or ought to have known that by Uganda’s accession to and domestication of the Treaty and Protocol, that power would be strictly qualified and limited by Articles 104 and 7(2) of the Treaty and 7 and 54(2) of the Protocol. In other words, they were duty bound to treat the Applicant in accordance with those provisions, and not to do so amounted to violation of his rights and Uganda’s obligations there under. 93. Finally, in spite of paying close attention to the Respondent’s evidence and submissions, we were unable to ascertain whether the Applicant was ever declared a prohibited immigrant, by what procedure and at what point. The only document that was issued was the Notice to Return or Convey Prohibited Immigrant. It was issued under Section 66(4) of the Citizenship and Immigration Control Act. The Section provides as under: “Where a prohibited immigrant enters Uganda from a ship or vehicle, whether or not with knowledge of the owner, agent or person in charge of it, the agent or person in charge commits an offence and is liable on conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred currency points; and provision shall be made by the owner, agent or person in charge, as the case may be, to the satisfaction of an immigration officer for the conveyance out of Uganda of the prohibited immigrant”. The Notice was issued to Kenya Airways, not to the Applicant. 94. The Section penalises the owner or agent of a ship or vessel that brings a prohibited immigrant into Uganda. We were not told whether the Applicant could have been a prohibited immigrant before starting his journey to Uganda or he was declared a prohibited immigrant on arrival. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 43