vexatious.
15. That the right to registration and protection of a trade mark is territorial in
nature.
16. That the 2nd Respondent is the registered owner of the trade mark and shall on the
balance of probability suffer more damage than the Applicant.
17. That.... to grant a temporary injunction in this case would amount to disposing of
the suit.
18. That the word “NGARISHA” was not conceived or coined by the Appilcant as
alleged suit is a generic Swahili word that means “shining” and the Applicant cannot
claim exclusive use to the said word.
19. That at all times the said product has been recognised as being manufactured and
marketed by the Respondents vide the trade mark of „NGARISHA‟ throughout the
media of publicity to traders and the general public throughout Uganda, and all other
areas where it is sold.
20. That the 2nd Respondent has as such created its own good will I the market which
the Appilcant now seeks to take unfair advantage of”
Mr. Yesse Mugenyi represented the Applicant while Mr. Kiryowa and Mr. Ochaya Thomas
appeared for the Respondents. They argued the application based on the affidavits on record.
The granting of a temporary injunction is an exercise of Judicial discretion and the purpose of
granting the same is to preserve matters in status quo until the questions to be investigated are
finally disposed of.
The conditions for the grant are first that the Applicant must show a prima facie case with a
probability of success. The current thinking based on a wealth of authorities is however,
whether there are serious questions to be tried rather than a prima facie case with a
probability of success. This observation was made per incuriam by Odoki J. as he then was,
in the case of Kiyimba Kagwa (supra) where he stated inter alia thus:
5