Alcon International Ltd v The New Vision Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd and Another (Civil Application 4 of 2010)

Supreme Court · [2010] UGSC 32 · 2010 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Application to the Supreme Court for an interim order of injunction pending the hearing of a substantive application for a permanent injunction (Civil Application No. 3 of 2010), arising in connection with a pending appeal (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009).

Decision

Interim injunction granted restraining the respondents from publishing prejudicial matter pending determination of the substantive application No. 3 of 2010.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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

Okello JSC held that every court, and the Supreme Court under rule 2(2) of its Rules, has inherent power to make any order necessary to achieve the ends of justice or prevent abuse of its process. That power is not confined to parties and extends to restraining a non-party newspaper from publishing opinion prejudicial to a party in subjudice proceedings. Citing a wrong rule, or none, is a technicality ignored under article 126(2)(e). For an interim order it suffices that a substantive application is pending and there is a serious threat the act will be done before it is heard, without pre-empting the substantive merits. Being so satisfied, the court allowed the application.

Facts

The applicant, Alcon International Ltd, was the respondent in a pending Supreme Court appeal (Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009) brought by NSSF and another, arising from a 1994 construction contract dispute that had gone to arbitration and through the High Court and Court of Appeal. While that appeal was pending, the respondent newspaper published, from 11 April 2010, a series of articles commenting on the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments under appeal, which the applicant said portrayed it as fraudulent, corrupt and criminal and were prejudicial to the pending proceedings. The respondents threatened to continue the serialisation in the next Sunday Vision. The applicant had filed a substantive application (Civil Application No. 3 of 2010) seeking a permanent injunction restraining the publications, and brought this application for an interim order pending the hearing of that substantive application.

Issues

Whether the application for an interim injunction restraining a non-party newspaper from publishing matter prejudicial to a pending appeal is properly before the Supreme Court.
Whether the court has inherent power to restrain a non-party from publishing prejudicial comment on subjudice proceedings.
Whether the application has merit to justify the grant of the interim order sought.

Orders

Application allowed.
The respondents are ordered to stop publishing in the print media any matter prejudicial to the applicant in respect of Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009, which is subjudice, until the pending substantive application No. 3 of 2010 is heard and determined.
Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the substantive application.

Key headnotes

Injunctions — Inherent Power of Court — Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules

Every court has inherent power to make any order necessary to achieve the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of its process, a power vested in the Supreme Court by rule 2(2) of the Rules of that court.

Injunctions — Restraint of Non-Parties — Prejudicial Publication on Subjudice Proceedings

The inherent power to restrain conduct prejudicial to pending proceedings is not limited to the parties and is wide enough to restrain a non-party newspaper from publishing opinion prejudicial to a party in respect of subjudice proceedings.

Procedure — Citing Wrong or No Enabling Provision — Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution

Citing a wrong provision of the law, or failing to cite the provision under which relief is sought, is a technicality that should not obstruct the cause of justice and may safely be ignored under article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.

Interim Orders — Test for Grant — Pending Substantive Application and Serious Threat

For the grant of an interim order it suffices to show that a substantive application is pending and that there is a serious threat that the act complained of will be done before the substantive application is heard; the court need not pre-empt the merits of the substantive application.

Legislation cited (8)

Judicature Act (Cap. 13) s.48(1)(a)
Civil Procedure Rules (SI 71-1) Order 41 r.2(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.6(2)(b)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.31
Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
Constitution of Uganda art.41
Constitution of Uganda art.126(2)(e)

Cases cited (3)

National Housing & Construction Corporation v Kampala District Land Board (Civil Application No. 6 of 2002)
David Muhenda & 3 Others v Margaret Kamuje (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1999)
Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tajdin Hussein and 2 Others (Civil Application No. 19 of 2008)

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.