66. Finally, Counsel submitted that since the Applicant had been to Uganda on other occasions immediately preceding the denial of entry on 13.04,2011, then the burden on Uganda to show compliance with the provisions of Articles 6(d), 7(2) and 8(3) of the Treaty and Articles 7(5), 7(6) and 54(2) of the Protocol, is that much higher. 67. In a spirited rebuttal, Ms Nshemereirwe, for the Respondent, denied that the Applicant was detained by the immigration authorities. She submitted that the Applicant was simply handed over to the carrier which had delivered him at the airport to return him wherever he had come from. 68. She submitted further, that since the next Kenya Airways flight was to depart at 3.00pm, it was only logical that Kenya Airways had to place the Applicant somewhere awaiting the next flight. It was Counsel’s submission that at that point the Applicant was no longer in the hands of the Respondent and the Respondent was neither responsible nor privy to how the Applicant was kept or taken out of the country. She asserted that the Respondent’s only interest was to see the Applicant out of the non-permissible area of the Airport. 69. On whether the actions complained of were in conformity with Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the Treaty, Counsel submitted that the Applicant was accorded due process in accordance with the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act. She contended that the discussion the Applicant had with immigration officials before he was informed that he could not be admitted into Uganda, the process of filling in an entry card, taking of finger prints and picture amounted to an administrative process which the Applicant underwent before he was found unworthy of entry into Uganda. REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 33