seeking an interlocutory injunction hence his reliance on the three principles in Giella vs Cassman Brown (supra) i.e (i) that an applicant must demonstrate a prima facie case with the probability of success. (ii) that damages may not be an adequate remedy if the injunction is not granted (iii) If the Court is in doubt, then it shall determine the application on a balance of convenience. 24. On our part it is clear to us that prayer (a) of the Application seeks orders of stay of the enforcement of Act No. 1/31 of 31st December 2013. Prayer (b) on the other hand, is worded in the nature of a declaratory order that the Commission is no longer competent to entertain and determine matters related to land and other assets. Prayer (c) seems to be seeking a mandatory injunction that pending the final judgment in Reference No. 2 of 2014, the ordinary jurisdictions (presumably the National Courts of Burundi) shall be compelled to entertain and determine all litigious matters related to land and other assets. 25. Our rendion of the prayers above is borne by the Court record of 18 th June 2014 when we sought clarification from Mr.Nshimirimana on the issue. If that be so, therein lies the first difficulty that the Applicants must contend with. We say so, because prayer (b) as framed and argued cannot be granted as an interim order. “Interim Order” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition as: “a temporary court decree that remains in effect for a specified time until a specified event.” 9