17. The learned Counsel for the interested party associated himself with the Appellant’s
submissions. He emphasized the interpretation of Article 30 (2) and its applicability to
the facts of the instant case. He underscored to the Court the fact that a reading of
Article 31 (1) of the Vienna Convention requires fora such as this Court, when
interpreting a Treaty to do so in good faith, in accordance with the ordinary meaning to
be given to the terms of the Treaty in their context, and in light of its objects and
purpose. Moreover, Article 9 (4) of the East African Community Treaty places temporal
limits within which all organs and institutions of the Community, including this Court, are
under a duty: “to perform the functions and act within the limits of the powers conferred
upon them by or under this Treaty”.
18. He contended that the First Instance Division, in its interpretation of Article 30 (2),
erred in its decision that the Article provides for a concept of “continuing violations”.
Article
30 (2) does not recognize any continuing breach or violation of the Treaty
outside the two months after a relevant action comes to the knowledge of the claimant;
nor is there any power to extend that time limit. Indeed, the jurisprudence of the
Appellate Division of this Court has put an end to that dispute: the said Article in letter
and in spirit, does not conceive of any concept of continuing act(s) or violation(s).
RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS
19. In response, the Respondents focused on two points: First, whether the Treaty
provides room for the concept of continuing violations? Second, whether Article 30 (2)
must be given a strict interpretation; including whether the Court has power to extend
the time limit provided in that Article 30 (2)? On all these, the Respondents
emphasized the applicability of the principle of continuing violations; and the doctrines
of the interpretation of the Treaty as a whole, and in good faith.
20. The Respondents opposed the Appeal, contending that the Reference was not time
barred because the infringements inflicted on them are still ongoing. They explained
that their arrest and rendition without due process of extradition, were clearly unlawful;
6