42. In holding as above, we are aware that the issue of jurisdiction has been settled in previous decisions of this Court. In Anyang’ Nyong’o and Others vs. Attorney General of Kenya and Others [supra] for example, the Court stated that:“Under Article 33(2), the Treaty obliquely envisages interpretation of Treaty provisions by National Courts. However, reading the pertinent provision with Article 34 leaves no doubt about the primacy, if not supremacy of this Court’s jurisdiction over the interpretation of provisions of the Treaty. For clarity, it is useful to reproduce here, the two Articles in full. Article 33 provides:1. Except where jurisdiction is conferred on the Court by Treaty, disputes in which the Community is a party shall not on that ground alone, be excluded from the jurisdiction of the national courts of the Partner State; and 2. Decisions of the Court on the interpretation and application of this Treaty shall have precedence over decisions of national courts on a similar matter. Article 34 provides:Where a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Partner State concerning the interpretation or application of the provisions of this Treaty or the validity of the regulations, directives, decisions or actions of the Community, that court or tribunal shall, if it considers that a ruling on the question is necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a preliminary ruling on the question. Reference No. 5 of 2013 Page 12