the Protocol, and to Rule 26 of the African Court’s Rules of Procedure. 48. Accordingly, the 4th Respondent prayed this Court to dismiss the Appeal against the 4th Respondent with costs; and to make such other orders as it deems fit. V. THE COURT’S ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES We will deal with Issues No.1 and No.2 together. The two are interrelated- namely: (1) Whether the First Instance Division erred in law when it held that it had no jurisdiction to interpret the African Charter, the Protocol, and other relevant international conventions and instruments to which the 2nd ,3rd and 5th Respondents are parties; and Whether the First Instance Division erred in law when it held that the delay by the 2nd , 3rd and 5th Respondents in depositing their respective declarations was not a violation of the provisions of the Treaty, and of the Charter, the Protocol; and the Vienna Convention. 49. The above two issues involve mainly the concept of Jurisdiction. Its meaning needs to be ascertained first in order to apply it correctly. In SHABTAI ROSENNE’S: “The Law and Practice of the International Court,” 1920 – 2005 Vol. II p.524, it is postulated that “jurisdiction relates to the capacity of the Court to decide a particular case with final and binding force.” 50. In the Nottebohm (cited in the Law and Practice of International Court. p. 523), it was observed that the Court must determine the scope of the relevant title of jurisdiction. 16