have been infringed upon, shall have a right to redress, even when the infringement has been committed by persons acting in their official capacities; and that the competent judicial, administrative or legislative authority or any other competent authority shall rule on the rights of the person who is seeking redress. 52. The import of these provisions is that by accepting to be bound by them, with no reservations, Uganda also accepted that her sovereignty to deny entry to persons, who are citizens of the Partner States, becomes qualified and governed by the same and, therefore, could no longer apply domestic legislation in ways that make its effects prevail over those of Community law. 53. Sovereignty, therefore, cannot not take away the precedence of Community law, cannot stand as a defence or justification for non compliance with Treaty obligations and neither can it act to exempt, impede or restrain Uganda from ensuring that her actions and laws are in conformity with requirements of the Treaty or the Protocol. 54. We are of the view, therefore, that while Uganda can declare a citizen of a Partner State a prohibited immigrant and deny him/her entry, it is clear from the foregoing that such declaration or denial of entry can only be valid if it complies with the requirements of Articles 104 and 7(2) of the Treaty and 7 and 54(2) of the Protocol. 55. Our interpretation is further fortified by the holding of the ECJ in the case of Costa vs Enel, Case 6/64, where the Court, while interpreting a provision similar to Article 8(4), held, inter alia, that: “The transfer by the States, from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system, of the rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2011      Page 29