to dispose of all plant, equipment and movable assets in line with article 18.0 of the Agreement. Since the movable assets of the Plaintiff have not been disposed, the breach is also continuous. The Plaintiff therefore submits that the present action is not statute barred. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION At the close of hearing two main issues came up for determination by this Honourable Court as follows: 1. Whether or not this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this suit? 2. Whether or not the Plaintiff’s action is Statute Barred? LEGAL ANALYSIS The Court deems it expedient, before it seeks to determine any issues presented before it, not only to establish whether it has the competence to deal with the issues so presented but also to ascertain the capacity of the parties before it. In respect of its competence, apart from the texts of the Court other factors may be considered as stated in the case of BAKARY SARRE & 28 ORS. & THE REPUBLIC OF MALI, (2011) CCJELR 67 that: “The Competence of the Court to adjudicate in a given case depends not only on its texts but also on the substance of the initiating application. The Court accords every attention to claims made by applicants, the pleas-in-law invoked, and in an instance where human rights violation is alleged, the Court equally carefully considers how the parties present such allegations. The Court therefore looks to find out whether the human rights violation as observed constitutes the main subject-matter of the 14