case, all that the Appellant needed to prove was the date the Applicant became aware of the action. The Appellant had raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the Reference was time barred. The Applicant argued that he did not know the date his client had been arrested and detained; and the Respondent failed to prove that the Applicant knew that date. We held that, in that case, the first limb of Article 30 (2) could not apply; and stated that: “In our view, it was not possible with any degree of certainty to determine when time begun to run. The pleadings do not tell us. Furthermore, the affidavits of the subject’s sister and wife are merely hearsay in that they only depone that “they were told” of the detention. …… the onus was on the Appellant to establish the time at which the detainee or his family members or his lawyers were told or otherwise made aware of the detention of Lt. Col. Ngabo. The Appellant failed to discharge that burden. He cannot turn around to impeach the Respondent for any failure to file the Reference within the two (2) months prescribed under Article 30 (2) of the Treaty.” 46. In deciding that case as we did, this Court could not pinpoint the date on which the Applicant had knowledge of the time Rugumba was arrested. The Appellant himself was not able to provide the Court with any clear and tangible evidence of when the Applicant, or Rugumba’ s family members became aware of Lt. Col. Ngabo’s detention as a starting point for computing the time limit of Article 30 (2). 47. However, we note that in the instant case, the Appellant based his argument on the principle of legal certainty. The principle is reflected in this Court’s recent decision in the Independent Medico case (supra), in which the Court stood firm and clear on the principle of legal certainty; and gave the following interpretation of Article 30 (2): “Again, no such intention [to extend the time limit] can be ascertained from the ordinary and plain meaning of the said Article [30 (2)] or any other provision 14