January this year. It seems to me that it would serve no purpose to order an account.”

The principle to be considered in a case of this nature is, that the circumstance should be such
that if the Court does hot issue the order, the Applicant would suffer irreparable loss even if
he subsequently succeeds in the action. This ground also succeeds for this reason.

On the balance of convenience. The Applicant‟s Director, Mr. Shah has deponed that the
Applicant is the manufacturer of the „NGARISHA‟ steel wool and has been trading it in
Uganda since 1990 and has acquired a substantial reputation for the said product. This
averment has not been controverted by the affidavit of both Respondents‟ Directors.
Respondent‟s Managing Director simply says he is not aware of this fact. The 2nd Respondent
naturally makes a blanked denial of the fact and says it is the manufacturer of NGARISHA
steel wool in Uganda.

Mr. Mugenyi argued that the Applicant is being inconvenienced. That it is competing against
its own product with another product from made by another person. The Respondents have,
since registering their Trade Mark been trying t push out the Applicant‟s distributors. The
matter is therefore serious. Mr. Kiryowa contended that the Court should look at the fact that
the Applicant is not trading in Uganda, yet the 2nd Respondent is the Registered owner of the
trade mark and is protected by the law. That the Applicants claim in is equity and the
Respondents‟ is in written law.

Secondly, there is a clear difference between the Trade Mark the Applicant claims to own.
The Respondent stands to suffer more than the Applicant if a temporary injunction is issued.

With due respect, I think if the circumstances of this case are taken as a whole, the Applicant
stands to suffer more if the injunction is not, granted. First of all, it has been in the business
since 1990. The Respondents have just recently entered the business in 2002. There is no way
the Respondents will render an accurate account of the profits made if the Applicant
succeeds. The Applicant‟s products are competing in the market and are likely to confuse the

16

Select target paragraph3