7. During the Scheduling Conference, Learned Counsel for both Parties decided to adopt all their original arguments set forth in their written submissions that were filed in the lower Court; and would only highlight them during the hearing. 8. Mr. Ngugi, Learned Counsel for the Attorney-General of Kenya as an interested party, associated himself with the Appellant’s prayers that this Court ought to reverse the decision of the First Instance Division. 9. Mr. Mureithi, Counsel for the Respondents, informed the Court that the Third Respondent, Mr. Mohamed Adan Abdul was released from Uganda in November 2011 and was, therefore, no longer interested in this appeal. APPELLANT’S SUBMISSIONS 10. The Appellant relied on the one ground of appeal, namely that the Learned Judges of the First Instance Division erred in law in finding that the Reference No. 4 of 2011 was not time barred. Specifically, the Appellant contended that the Application was time-barred because the Reference on which it is based was itself filed in Court out of the time limit prescribed by Article 30 (2) of the Treaty. The Appellant explained that while the acts complained of in that Reference (including the arrest, rendition and detention of the Respondents), happened between 22nd July and 17th September 2010, the Applicants had filed their Reference only on 9th June 2011, vastly in excess of two months after they, and persons claiming under them, became aware of the alleged infringement. 11. The Appellant submitted that while the Court did not challenge this evidence, it nevertheless overruled the preliminary objection. In doing so, the Court held that it was alive to the strict limitations of Article 30 (2); but that the acts complained of were continuous, not capable of mathematical computation of time and, therefore, they could not be subjected to the time-limit of Article 30 (2) of the Treaty. 4