26. The Appellant further contended that the 1st Respondent failed to supervise the 2nd, 3rd, and 5thRespondents to ensure that they deposit their declarations pursuant to the provisions of the Protocol to the African Charter despite having been informed about it. 27. As to the issue of the cause of action, the Appellant argued that a complaint on the infringement of Treaty obligations under Articles 5,6,8,23,27 and 30 of the EAC Treaty creates a cause of action under the Treaty. In support of his argument in that respect, the Appellant cited various cases of this Court such as Katabazi & Another V. Secretary General of the East African Community & 4 Others AHRLR 119 (EACJ 2007), Callist Mwatela & Others V. Secretary General of the East African Community (EACJ 2008) Reference No.1 of 2005, Prof. Anyang’ Nyongo & 10 Others v. AG Kenya & Others EACJ Ref No. 1 of 2006. ISSUE No.4.Whether the First Instance Division erred in law when it refused to award costs against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th Respondents in the circumstances. 28. This issue is dealt with in Paragraph 81 of this Judgment. IV. THE RESPONDENTS’ CASE THE 1ST RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS 29. On the first issue, regarding jurisdiction, the 1stRespondentsubmitted that the First Instance Division of the Court correctly held that the right forum for litigating over the said matter was the African Court through the African Commission. 11