considers necessary or desirable” on such terms as it deems fit. This mean that the Court has the unfettered discretion to grant or refuse to grant such orders and as is the law, discretion must always be exercised judiciously. In saying so, we are in agreement with the decision of Koome, J. A. in Maguna Andu Self Selection Stores Ltd vs Albert Ouma Akeyo [2014] eKlr that: “…judicial discretion is always done on a reasonable basis; it must be based on facts or laws that demonstrate that the applicant is deserving of the orders…” 22.We agree and with the above background in mind and looking at the Application before us and specifically the prayers sought, the language is less than elegant and created confusion at the hearing. We say so, with respect, because it seems that the Applicants are seeking “ex-parte” orders at the “inter-partes” stage and which by their tenure and effect, also seem to be “final” in nature. Interim orders under both Article 39 and Rule 73 (1) and (2) are precisely that; interim pending the final decision in a reference hence the words in Article 39 that “interim orders and other directions issued by the Court shall have the same effect as as decisions of the Court.” Decisions are, therefore, final but interim orders are not final although they are as binding as final decisions. 23. Further, as was clear from the submissions of Dr. Kafumbe for the 2 nd Respondent, Parties were unclear as to what principles of law should be applicable to the Motion. Neither Counsel for the Applicants nor Counsel for the 1st Respondent addressed that issue but Dr. Kafumbe in his submissions approached all the prayers as if they were 8