The objective of a temporary injunction is twofold. First the granting or refusal of a
temporary injunction, which is an interlocutory order, is an exercise of judicial
discretion which must be exercised judiciously. (See: Sargent Vs Patel (1949) 16
E.A.C.A 63). Secondly the purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve matters
in a status quo until the question to be investigated in the suit can finally be
disposed of. (See: Kiyimba-Kaggwa Vs Haji Abdu Nasser Civil suit No. 2019/1984;
Noor Mohamed Hanmohamed Vs Kassamali Virji Madhani (1953) 20 EACA 8 AND
Garden Cottage food limited Vs Milk Marketing Vs Milk Marketing Board [1984]
A.C 130)
The law is fairly settled now as the tests required in an action such as this for Court
to consider in granting a temporary injunction.
The first is whether there are serious questions to be tried a variant from the
original prima facie test. (See: Britannia Allied Industries Vs Sunrise
Confectionaries Ltd MA-0288 OF 2005 my decision and Francis Babumba & Others
Vs Erusa Bunju Civil suit No. 679/90 – Okello J as he then was)
The Second is that, a temporary injunction will not normally be granted unless the
applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury, which would not adequately be
compensated by an award of damages; (See: Kiyimba-Kaggwa Vs Haji Abdu Nasser
Civil suit No. 2019/1984)
Thirdly; if the court is in doubt, it will decide an application on the balance of
convenience. (See: Giella & Cassman Brown Co. Ltd [1973] EA. 358; Industries Vs
Trufoods [1972] EA 420)