the purview of the same provision of the Treaty. Both positions go to the question of the jurisdiction of this Court in this matter. 13. Conversely, in response to a question from the Bench on this issue, it was Mr. Kayobera’s contention that this Court did not have jurisdiction to review or inquire into a decision of a National Court as this was, in his view, expressly prohibited by Article 30(3) of the Treaty. Article 30(3) of the Treaty reads: “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.” 14. We have carefully considered the provisions of Article 30(3) of the Treaty. That legal provision negates the jurisdiction of the Court over matters that have been reserved under the Treaty to an institution of a Partner State. Whereas the Treaty does not expressly reserve the business of national courts as one of those matters over which this Court has no jurisdiction, we find that Articles 9(4) and 27(1) are quite instructive on the intention of the framers of the Treaty on this issue. We reproduce the said articles below for ease of reference. “Article 9(4): The organs and institutions of the Community shall perform the functions, and act within the limits of powers conferred upon them by or under this Treaty. Article 27(1): The Court shall have jurisdiction over the interpretation and application of this Treaty.” Reference No. 5 of 2015 Page 9