Case and Submissions for the 2nd Respondent 19. By Submissions filed on 5th May 2014, the 2nd Respondent, Secretary-General of the East African Community (EAC) opposes the Motion and states from the outset that although no orders are sought against him, the Application should still be dismissed as it is not tenable within the Law of the EAC. In any event, that he has already constituted a team to visit Burundi and verify the many claims regarding abuses in land ownership and generally the governance situation in Burundi. The team is yet to do so and therefore grant of interim orders before such a report is presented to him would not be a tenable proposition. 20. Dr. Anthony Kafumbe, Counsel for the 2nd Respondent further submitted that the orders sought are in the nature of injunctions and are therefore a matter of judicial discretion. He relies on the decisions in Sergent vs Patel [1972] 16 EALA 63 and Giella vs Cassman Brown [1973] E.A. 358 to argue that none of the orders sought should therefore be granted. In the end, the 2nd Respondent seeks that the Application should be dismissed with costs. Determination 21. The Notice of Motion before us is brought under the provisions of Article 39 of the Treaty and Rule 73 (1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure of this Court which both grant the Court the jurisdiction to grant “any interim orders or issue any directions which it 7