the Applicant in that case had challenged the procedure leading to the decisions that were in issue therein, which was not the case presently. 9. The grant of interim orders before this Court is governed by Article 39 of the Treaty as read together with Rule 21 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. Article 39 reads: “The Court may, in a case referred to it, make any interim orders or issue any directions which it considers necessary or desirable. ….” 10. In the case of Prof. Peter Anyang’ Nyongo & 10 others vs. The Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya & 3 others, Ref. No. 1 of 2006, the Court relied on the following dictum from Giella vs. Casman Brown (1973) EA 358 (CA) to define the parameters for consideration in the grant or refusal of interim orders in the EAC jurisdiction: “The conditions for the grant of an interlocutory injunction are now, I think, well settled in East Africa. First, an applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success. Secondly, an interlocutory injunction will not normally be granted unless irreparable the injury, applicant which might would not otherwise suffer adequately be compensated by an award of damages. Thirdly, if the court is in doubt, it will decide an application on the balance of convenience. (E. A. Industries vs. Trufoods [1972] EA 420).” Reference No. 5 of 2015 Page 7