Wakilii

Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Miscellaneous Application 56 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 177 · 2023 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application before a single Justice of the Court of Appeal for a temporary injunction pending the hearing of an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 88 of 2023) against the High Court's refusal of a temporary injunction in HCMA 532 of 2021.
Decision
Application for a temporary injunction pending appeal dismissed; implementation of the ITMS not restrained.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

A single Justice of the Court of Appeal dismissed an application for a temporary injunction restraining implementation of the Intelligent Transport Monitoring System pending appeal. Applying the Shiv Construction principles, the Justice found that, by setting out the questions to be determined on appeal, the applicant had established a prima facie case. However, the applicant failed to show irreparable injury: the inconvenience of acquiring new digital number plates was ascertainable and compensable in damages. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent, because granting the injunction would in effect determine the pending appeal. The application was accordingly dismissed, with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Facts

The applicant had filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 225 of 2021 in the High Court seeking declarations that the government's engagement of a Russian company, Joint Stock Company Global Security, to execute a programme of compulsory digital surveillance of all motor vehicles (the Intelligent Transport Monitoring System, ITMS) violated several constitutional rights. Its accompanying application for a temporary injunction (HCMA 532 of 2021) was dismissed on 7 February 2023, after which it filed a notice of appeal and Civil Appeal No. 88 of 2023. The applicant then sought a temporary injunction in the Court of Appeal restraining implementation of the ITMS pending that appeal. The respondent opposed, contending the ITMS was a security system to map vehicles and motorcycles for crime prevention, that implementation was at its final stages with new sensor-embedded registration plates, and that the balance of convenience favoured the State's duty to protect citizens.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success on the pending appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable damage, not compensable in damages, if the temporary injunction were refused.
  3. Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the temporary injunction pending appeal.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Conditions for grant
A temporary injunction is an exercise of judicial discretion to preserve the status quo, and will be granted only where the applicant shows a prima facie case with a probability of success, that it might otherwise suffer irreparable injury not compensable in damages, and, where the court is in doubt, that the balance of convenience favours the grant.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal — Establishing a prima facie case
To establish a prima facie case on a pending appeal an applicant must place before the court material going beyond a mere statement that the appeal has a likelihood of success; setting out in the supporting affidavit the important questions of law to be determined on appeal is sufficient, even where a draft memorandum of appeal is not attached.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunctions — Irreparable injury
Irreparable injury means damage that cannot be undone or measured by a fixed pecuniary standard; where the inconvenience an applicant would suffer is ascertainable and capable of being compensated by an award of damages, the requirement of irreparable injury is not satisfied.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction Pending Appeal — Balance of convenience
A court will not grant a temporary injunction pending appeal where doing so would in effect determine the very appeal that is pending; in such circumstances the balance of convenience tips in favour of the party that would otherwise have the appeal pre-empted.

Legislation cited (16)

  • Judicature Act s.10
  • Judicature Act s.11
  • Judicature Act s.12(1)
  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.2(2)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.6(2)(b)
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions r.44(1)
  • Constitution Article 21(1)
  • Constitution Article 24
  • Constitution Article 27
  • Constitution Article 28(1)
  • Constitution Article 38
  • Constitution Article 40(2)
  • Constitution Article 43
  • Constitution Article 44(a)
  • Constitution Article 45

Cases cited (4)

  • Shiv Construction v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1992)
  • Osman Kassim v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2019)
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All E.R. 504
  • Jayendrakumar Devchand Devani v Harides Vallabhdas Bhadresa & Anor (Civil Appeal No. 21 of 1971)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.