The court found that the Rent Restriction Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to issue orders in respect of premises with rent exceeding Kshs. 2,500 per month, rendering all its orders null and void. Consequently, the appellants could not rely on those orders to seek preservatory or injunctive relief. The dispute over rent was contractual and quantifiable, and thus not suitable for injunctive relief as no irreparable harm was demonstrated. The application for contempt also failed because the Contempt of Court Act was unconstitutional, and the orders allegedly breached were either lapsed or unclear prior to clarification. The court exercised its discretion on costs, directing each party to bear its own costs for the interlocutory applications. The applications were dismissed, and the matter was set for directions on the main appeal.