Nyong’o & 10 Others vs. Attorney Kenya & 2 Others EACJ General of the Republic of Ref. No. 1 of 2006 and held: “We have no hesitation in reiterating what this Court said in Anyang’ 30(1) of the required and/or Nyong’o (supra) Treaty, to show a damage about the namely, that a import of Article claimant right or interest that was that was suffered is not infringed as a consequence of the matter complained of in the Reference in question. It is enough if it is alleged that the matter complained infringes a_provision_of the Treaty in of _a_relevant manner.” (Our emphasis) 25. In addition to jurisdiction arising from the infringement of a Treaty provision as stated in Hon. Sitenda Sebalu(supra) above, this Court has in the past pronounced domestic laws constituting a amounting matter that itself on the violation of Partner States’ to a is violation justiciable of before Rugumba vs. Attorney General of Rwanda 2010 Muhochi and vs. Attorney the General Treaty the EACJ and thus Court. See Ref. No. 8 of of Uganda EACJ Ref. No. 5 of 2011. 26. More recently, the issue of the Court's jurisdiction was aptly summed up in the case of Henry Kyarimpa vs. Attorney General of Uganda EACJ Appeal No. 6 of 2014 as follows: “In short, being in an impugned internationally wrongful question internal not whether law, the Treaty. Reference No.1 5 of 2014 adjudging such this Court asks action but rather whether Where state the complaint action as itself the is in conformity with it is in conformity with is that the action was Page 10