Wakilii

Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application No. 56 of 2023)

Court of Appeal · [2023] UGCA 366 · 2023 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to a single justice of the Court of Appeal for a temporary injunction pending appeal against the High Court's refusal of a similar order.
Decision
Application for a temporary injunction pending appeal dismissed

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 5 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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

The applicant sought a temporary injunction restraining government from implementing the Intelligent Transport Monitoring System pending its appeal against the High Court's refusal of a similar order. Sitting as a single justice, the Court of Appeal held that although the applicant had established a prima facie case by setting out the questions to be determined on appeal, it had not shown irreparable damage, since the inconvenience of acquiring new number plates was ascertainable and compensable in damages. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent because granting the injunction would effectively determine the pending appeal. The application was dismissed, with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal.

Facts

The applicant filed Miscellaneous Cause No. 225 of 2021 in the High Court challenging presidential directives, cabinet resolutions and agreements through which the Government of Uganda engaged a Russian company, Joint Stock Company Global Security, to execute the Intelligent Transport Monitoring System (ITMS) — a programme of compulsory digital surveillance of all motor vehicles and motorcycles — alleging violation of fundamental rights. It also applied for a temporary injunction (HCMA No. 532 of 2021), which the High Court dismissed on 7 February 2023 as devoid of merit. The applicant filed a notice of appeal the same day, lodged Civil Appeal No. 88 of 2023, and applied to the Court of Appeal for a temporary injunction restraining implementation of the ITMS pending the appeal. The respondent opposed, asserting the ITMS is a security system necessitated by rising crime and that implementation, in its final stages, would only require vehicle owners to obtain new digitally enabled number plates.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with a probability of success on the appeal.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable damage, or the appeal be rendered nugatory, 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 — Injunctions — Temporary Injunction — Conditions for Grant
A temporary injunction will be granted only where the applicant shows a prima facie case with a probability of success and that it might otherwise suffer irreparable injury not adequately compensable in damages; where the court is in doubt, the application is decided on the balance of convenience.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Injunction Pending Appeal — Establishing Likelihood of Success
An applicant for an injunction pending appeal 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 to be determined on appeal suffices to establish a prima facie case.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Irreparable Damage — Loss Compensable in Damages
Where the inconvenience an applicant may suffer is ascertainable and can be compensated by a monetary award, no irreparable damage is established and a temporary injunction will not issue.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Balance of Convenience — Injunction Determining the Appeal
A temporary injunction pending appeal will be refused where granting it would in effect determine the very appeal that is pending, the balance of convenience tipping in favour of the party who would otherwise suffer that injustice.

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 of Uganda art.21(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.24
  • Constitution of Uganda art.27
  • Constitution of Uganda art.28(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.38
  • Constitution of Uganda art.40(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.43
  • Constitution of Uganda art.44(a)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.45

Cases cited (4)

  • Shiv Construction v Endesha Enterprises Ltd (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1992)
  • Osman Kasim v Century Bottling Company Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 34 of 2019)
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 All ER 504
  • Jayendrakumar Devchand Devani v Haridas 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.