of unclaimed property. The Applicant thereupon filed this Reference contending that the Respondent’s actions contravened Articles 5(3), 6(d), 7(1)(a) and (2), and 8(1) of the Treaty. Respondent’s case 5. The Respondent contested the Applicant’s allegation and asserted that the acts complained of could not be attributed to a Partner State or an institution of the East African Community (EAC) so as to bring them within this Court’s jurisdiction. In addition, the Respondent contended that it was not liable for the acts of the Commission given that the latter had its own legal personality. It was also the Respondent’s contention that the filing of the present Reference was an abuse of court process in so far as the Applicant had filed another case against the Commission, namely, Case No. 114/13/TC/NYGE, the determination of which was still pending before a national court in Rwanda. Finally, the Respondent asserted that the Reference was filed out of time having been filed on 22nd November 2013, allegedly well beyond the prescribed time. 6. The Respondent thus raised two preliminary points of law; first, on the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain a Reference premised on actions of an entity that was neither a Partner State nor institution of the EAC, and secondly, on the limitation of time within which a reference may be brought before this Court. The Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection in that regard as prescribed by Rule 41 of the Court’s Rules. REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 3