53.As can be gleaned from the record, specifically the proceedings of 6th November 2013, Mr. Onsongo, learned Counsel for the Applicant, was very brief in his rebuttal on this point. It was his main argument that the complaint does not relate to the exact date and point of arrest and detention.That the Applicant is basically arguing against an unlawful set of activities and that the process which led to his incarceration and denial of freedom of movement was unprocedural; and so the issue of limitation of time cannot arise in the circumstances; and the objection should therefore be overruled. 54.The 1st Respondent made no submissions on the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Kaahwa. Decision of the Court 55.We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the Parties in support of their respective positions regarding the above issues. It is common ground , as is evident from the affidavits in support of their respective pleadings, that the acts complained of ( the arrest, detention and alleged denial of freedom of movement of the Applicant) happened between 28th July 2011 and 17th February, 2012 when he was released (see paragraph 2 of Onesime Kabayabaya’s affidavit sworn on 30th August 22