31. As to the other limb of the Respondent State’s objection, by which it is contending that the Applicants’ claims are frivolous and vexatious, the Court holds that the question of whether or not the Application is frivolous or vexatious is one to be resolved when it considers the merits of the Application. Given the preceding, the Court dismisses the second limb of the Respondent State’s objection to its material jurisdiction. 32. In the circumstances, the Court holds that it has material jurisdiction to consider the present Application. B. Other aspects of jurisdiction 33. The Court notes that other aspects of its jurisdiction are not contested by the Parties. Nonetheless, and in line with Rule 49(1) of the Rules, the Court must satisfy itself that all aspects of its jurisdiction are met before proceeding. 34. In relation to its personal jurisdiction, the Court recalls, as stated in paragraph 2 of this judgment, that the Respondent State, on 21 November 2019, deposited with the Chairperson of the African Union Commission, an instrument withdrawing its Declaration made under Article 34(6) of the Protocol. The Court further recalls that it has held that the withdrawal of a Declaration does not have any retroactive effect and it also has no bearing on matters pending prior to the filing of the instrument withdrawing the Declaration, or new cases filed before the withdrawal takes effect.10 Since any such withdrawal of the Declaration takes effect twelve (12) months after the notice of withdrawal is deposited, the effective date for the Respondent State’s withdrawal was 22 November 2020.11 This Application having been filed before the Respondent State deposited its notice of withdrawal was thus not affected by the said withdrawal. The Court also notes, as earlier pointed out, that the Second Applicant has observer status before the 10 Cheusi v. Tanzania (judgment), supra, §§ 35-39. Ingabire Victoire Umuhoza v. United Republic of Rwanda (jurisdiction) (3 June 2016) 1 AfCLR 562, § 67. 11 10