17. In the same vein, this Court is not clothed with appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of national courts. Article 23(3) of the Treaty specifically designates it as a Court of First Instance in matters of Treaty interpretation. 18. Without prejudice, therefore, and subject to more intrinsic arguments at the hearing thereof, we are not persuaded that Reference No. 2 of 2015 raises matters of Treaty interpretation. To that extent, we are not persuaded that the said Reference raises serious questions for determination by this Court. However, we would not go so far as to hold that we have been satisfied to the required standard of proof by either party’s position on this issue. We do, therefore, deem it necessary to determine the questions of irreparable injury and balance of convenience. 19. The decision in E. A. Industries vs. Trufoods [1972] EA 420 that was referred to in Giella vs. Casman Brown (supra) is quite instructive in this regard. In that case, it was held (Spry VP): “There is, I think, no difference of opinion as to the law regarding interlocutory injunctions, although it may be expressed in different ways. A plaintiff has to show a prima facie case with a probability of success, and if the court is in doubt it will decide the application on the balance of convenience. An interlocutory injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant for it might otherwise suffer irreparable injury, which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages.”(our emphasis) Reference No. 5 of 2015 Page 11