Reference was filed on 22nd November 2013, it was clearly within the 2-month time frame prescribed by Article 30(2) of the Treaty. 47. We would therefore over-rule the Respondent’s Objection on limitation of time, and do answer this issue in the negative. Issue No. 3: Whether the action of taking over the Applicant’s mall by the Kigali City Abandoned Property Management Commission is inconsistent with and/ or in contravention of Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Treaty. 48. It was submitted for the Applicant that in assuming management of the mall and redirecting rental payments to itself without giving the Applicant the opportunity to be heard, the Commission did not follow due process and thus contravened Article 5(2) of the Treaty that calls for the enhancement and strengthening of partnerships between the Respondent and the Rwandan private sector. The Applicant contended that the arbitrary take-over of the Applicant’s property contravened the principles of good governance, rule of law, social justice and equal opportunities as enshrined in Article 6(d) of the Treaty. It was argued for the Applicant that the contravention of the foregoing principles also entailed breach of Articles 7(1)(a) and (2) of the Treaty. Finally, it was the Applicant’s contention that the Respondent’s arbitrary action defeated its undertakings to foster and promote the objectives of the Community or implementation of the Treaty as prescribed by Article 8(1)(a) and (c) of the Treaty. Learned Counsel for the Applicant cited this Court’s definition of the notion of ‘rule of law’ in the case of James Katabazi & 21 Others vs. The Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda Reference No. 1 of 2007, as well as Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 17 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights in support of his submission that the Respondent’s arbitrary actions were a violation of the rule of law and the REFERENCE No. 10 OF 2013 Page 23