Wakilii

Game Concepts Limited & Another v The Attorney General (Constitutional Application 10 of 2015)

Constitutional Court · [2015] UGCC 96 · 2015 Application Partly Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for an interim order of injunction pending the hearing of a temporary injunction application and a constitutional petition
Decision
Interim order granted maintaining the status quo until disposal of the temporary injunction application; relief restraining prosecution refused

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

On an application for an interim order of injunction, the court applied the established test: the petition and main application must not be frivolous or vexatious and must show a prima facie likelihood of success, the applicant must stand to suffer irreparable loss, and in doubt the matter is resolved on the balance of convenience. The court will not assess the merits of the petition, that being reserved to the Constitutional Court. The petition raised a serious constitutional question, the applicants faced irreparable loss from closure of their gaming businesses, and the respondent would suffer no damage. The interim order was granted to maintain the status quo, save for relief restraining prosecution, which was refused as too generally framed.

Facts

The applicants carry on the business of promoting gaming and pool betting in Uganda. They applied to the National Lotteries Board for renewal of their 2015 licences, which the Board declined to renew, instead imposing substantially increased licence and security requirements. The applicants filed a constitutional petition contending that the refusal contravened article 40(2) of the Constitution, which protects the right to carry on any lawful occupation, trade or business, and challenging the constitutionality of provisions criminalising unlicensed gaming. They also filed an application for a temporary injunction and this interim application, alleging that the second applicant's premises had been raided, persons arrested and released on bond, and that closure of operations had been threatened. The respondent neither filed an affidavit in reply nor appeared, despite proper service. The applicants sought an interim order to restrain interference with their businesses pending resolution of the petition.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of an interim order of injunction pending the hearing of the temporary injunction application and the constitutional petition.
  2. Whether an interim order restraining prosecution of the applicants could be granted where the relief was couched in general terms.

Orders

  • An interim order issues against the respondent, the National Lottery Board, and any other government agencies, servants, employees, assignees or others claiming or deriving authority from the State, from closing or in any way interfering with the applicants' right to carry on the lawful business of gaming and sports betting in Uganda, until disposal of Constitutional Application No. 9 of 2015 for a temporary injunction.
  • The orders sought restraining prosecution of the applicants are declined, being couched in general terms.
  • The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the main application.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Conditions for Grant of an Interim Order of Injunction
A party seeking an interim order of injunction must satisfy the court that the main application and the petition are not frivolous or vexatious and have a prima facie likelihood of success, that the party stands to suffer irreparable loss if the order is refused, and, in case of doubt, the matter is resolved on the balance of convenience.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Relief — Court Not to Determine Merits of Petition
On an interim injunction application it is not the court's function to decide whether the petition has merit; it need only be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried, the merits being reserved to the court hearing the substantive petition.
Evidence — Affidavits — Effect of Failure to File an Affidavit in Reply
Where facts are sworn to in an affidavit and the opposing party fails to deny them, the burden being on that party to do so, the facts are presumed to have been accepted.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Generally Framed Relief Restraining Prosecution
An interim order restraining prosecution will not be granted where the relief is couched in such general terms that the court cannot identify the offences in issue; the propriety of any charge is better addressed in the court in which the charge is laid.

Legislation cited (5)

  • Civil Procedure Act cap 71 s.98
  • Civil Procedure Rules S.I. 71-1 Order 51 rr.1 and 3
  • Constitution of Uganda art.40(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda art.137(3)
  • Gaming and Betting Control Act s.2

Cases cited (4)

  • Horizon Coaches v Mbarara Municipal Council and 2 Others (Constitutional Application No. 7 of 2014)
  • Humphrey Nzeyi v Bank of Uganda and the Attorney General (Constitutional Application No. 1 of 2013)
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
  • H. G. Gandesha and Another v G. J. Lutaya (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1989)
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.