The applicant was represented by Mr. Isaac Bakayana while the respondent was
represented by Mr. G. Okello.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had a prima facie case in the
head suit with a high probability of success. He submitted that the Applicant has a
trade mark for Supermatch cigarettes which is not denied by the respondents. That
Annexture A1 and A3 show that the applicants sister company in south Sudan also
has a trade mark for Supermatch cigarettes.
He went on to submit that the Supreme Court of south Sudan barred master mind
Tobacco Company Kenya from using the trademark in south Sudan and that the
above government only authorizes the applicant and its sister company for
importing Supermatch cigarettes in to South Sudan which is also not denied.
Counsel for the applicant further submitted that his clients would suffer irreparable
loss that could not be atoned for in damages because these cigarettes transiting
Uganda to south Sudan are subsequently re-imported into Arua in Uganda which is
smuggling and that the loss can not therefore be estimated.
As to balance of convenience the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that
the respondent will not suffer anything on the contrary if the temporary injunction
is granted.
In reply counsel for the respondent Authority submitted that the existence of the
trademark is not denied as far as Uganda and south Sudan is concerned. He
submitted that the Authority had a defence to the case because the respondent is
mandated Uganda as a land locked country to provide reciprocal support to
countries which do the same to Uganda to allow trade (that is Kenya). He referred

Select target paragraph3