Wakilii

Alcon International Limited v The New Vision Publishing Co.Ltd, The Editor In Chief,New Vision & Sunday Vision [2010] UGSC 4

Supreme Court · 2010 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for an interim order of injunction pending the hearing of a substantive application for a permanent injunction
Decision
Interim injunction granted restraining the respondents from publishing prejudicial matter pending the hearing of the substantive application

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

The Supreme Court held that its inherent power under rule 2(2) of its Rules to make any order necessary to achieve the ends of justice or prevent abuse of process is wide enough to restrain even a non-party newspaper from publishing opinion prejudicial to a party in proceedings that are sub judice. Failure to cite, or citing the wrong, enabling rule was a mere technicality ignorable under article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution. For an interim order it sufficed to show that a notice of appeal had been lodged under rule 72, that a substantive application was pending, and that there was a serious threat of the complained-of act before that application is heard. The court was satisfied these conditions were met and granted the interim injunction.

Facts

The applicant was the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009 (NSSF and Another v Alcon International Ltd), pending before the Supreme Court, arising from a 1994 construction contract dispute that had been referred to arbitration. While that appeal was pending, the respondent newspapers published a series of articles commenting on the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments that were the subject of the appeal. The applicant contended the publications, beginning 11 April 2010 and continuing on 18 April 2010, were prejudicial both to the applicant and to the proceedings in the pending appeal, portraying the applicant as fraudulent and corrupt. The applicant had filed Civil Application No. 03 of 2010 seeking a permanent injunction, which was yet to be heard. The respondents had threatened to continue serialising the articles, prompting this application for an interim restraining order.

Issues

  1. Whether the application for an interim injunction was properly before the Supreme Court.
  2. Whether the court has inherent power to restrain a non-party newspaper from publishing opinion prejudicial to proceedings pending before the court.
  3. Whether the application had merit to justify the grant of the interim order sought.

Orders

  • Application allowed.
  • The respondents 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 sub judice, until the pending substantive Application No. 03 of 2010 is heard and determined.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the substantive application.

Key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Inherent power of the court — Restraint of a non-party
The inherent power of the court under rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules to make any order necessary to achieve the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of its process is not limited to parties and is wide enough to restrain a non-party newspaper from publishing prejudicial opinion concerning a party to, or in respect of, proceedings that are sub judice.
Civil Procedure — Interim orders — Conditions for grant
For the grant of an interim order it suffices to show that a notice of appeal has been lodged in accordance with rule 72 of the Rules, that a substantive application is pending, and that there is a serious threat that the act complained of will be done before that substantive application is heard; it is not necessary to pre-empt consideration of the matters bearing on the success of the substantive application.
Constitutional Law — Article 126(2)(e) — Citation of wrong or no enabling provision as a technicality
Citing a wrong provision of the law, or failing to cite the provision under which a party seeks redress, is a technicality that should not obstruct the course of justice and may be ignored under article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.

Legislation cited (9)

  • Judicature Act (Cap 13) s.48(1)(a)
  • Civil Procedure Rules (SI 71-1) Order 41 r.2(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda article 126(2)(e)
  • Constitution of Uganda article 41
  • Supreme Court Rules rule 2(2)
  • Supreme Court Rules rule 6(2)(b)
  • Supreme Court Rules rule 31
  • Supreme Court Rules rule 42
  • Supreme Court Rules rule 72

Cases cited (3)

  • National Housing & Construction Corporation v Kampala District Land Board (Civil Application No. 06 of 2002)
  • David Muhenda & 3 Others v Margaret Kamuje (Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1999)
  • Hwan Sung Industries Ltd v Tojdin 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.