shown that there were triable issues on either side.”
Also in the recent case of Kikungwe Issa and Ors —Vs- Standard Bank
Investment Corporation and Ors Misc. Appl. No. … /2004 Arising from CS
409/2004 (per Kiryabwire J.).
I agree with this approach and I have adopted it in this application, because it gives better
guidance for the exercise of the Courts discretion.
Secondly, such 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. .Thirdly, if the Court is in doubt, it will decide the application on the balance of
convenience. See: Kiyimba — Kaggwa —Vs- Haji Nasser Katende [1985) HCB 43.
- Giella —Vs- Cassman Brown and Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358.
- Robert Kavuma —Vs- Hotel International Ltd CA No. 8/90.
Applying the above conditions to the instant application this is what I have come up with.
Regarding the first issue, the case for the Plaintiff is contained in the plaint filed in this Court
dated 21/5/2004 where the Plaintiff averred as follows:
That the three of them are duly incorporated companies, carrying on business in Uganda. At
all times, it has been carrying on a well established business of manufacturing and marketing
of steel wool and metal fibre know as “NGARISHA”. It has been using the trade name
„NGARISHA‟ since 1986 in relation to the said products at all material times, and the said
trade mark has been widely advertised through all known media and the general public,
throughout Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Congo and other countries as its trade mark. For that
reason, the said name has become known in trade and to the general public as signifying the
Plaintiff‟s steel wool and metal fibre and the Plaintiff has acquired a substantial reputation in
the and by the use of the said trade mark.
7