Wakilii

CFAO Motors Uganda Limited & 7 Others v The Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Authority & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 205 of 2024)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 83 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for mandatory injunction arising from a judicial review proceeding challenging Circular No. 7 of 2023
Decision
Application for mandatory injunction dismissed; main judicial review cause to proceed to full hearing

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains 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 High Court declined to issue a mandatory injunction to halt implementation of Circular No. 7 of 2023 pending judicial review. The Court held that mandatory injunctions are granted only in exceptional circumstances and the higher standard was not met. Granting the injunction would predetermine the main cause, affect innocent third parties including the government who had already entered contracts under the revised procurement regime, and inappropriately suspend the operation of a lawful regulatory measure before the court had determined its validity.

Outcome

Application for mandatory injunction dismissed; main judicial review cause to proceed to full hearing

Facts

Eight applicants, comprising authorised motor vehicle dealers and the Uganda Motor Industry Association, challenged PPDA's Circular No. 7 of 2023 which amended the Standard Bidding Document for procurement of supplies. The circular altered the existing requirement for a manufacturer's authorisation to include supplier/distributor authorisation as an alternative. The applicants contended they were not consulted before the circular was issued and that it posed an existential threat to their businesses. PPDA responded that the circular was issued within its statutory mandate to improve procurement efficiency and competition, and that no law required consultation with suppliers. The interested party, Sumabolt Logistics Limited, opposed the application on grounds that it had already secured contracts under the revised regime and would suffer loss if the injunction were granted.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should issue a mandatory injunction to compel the respondents to stop implementation of Circular No. 7 of 2023 pending determination of the main judicial review application.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Mandatory Injunctions — Standard for Grant at Interlocutory Stage
A mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage is granted only in exceptional and clearest cases. The court must feel a higher degree of assurance that at trial it will appear the injunction was rightly granted, a higher standard than required for a prohibitory injunction which merely preserves the status quo.
Administrative Law — Injunctions Against Public Bodies — Reluctance to Restrain Lawful Action
Courts should be reluctant to restrain a public body from doing what the law allows it to do. An injunction may not issue to suspend the operation of legislation or regulatory measures adopted under statutory authority unless the applicant establishes a prima facie case that the public authority is acting unlawfully.
Judicial Review — Interim Relief — Effect of Granting Mandatory Injunction Before Full Hearing
Where the validity of a regulatory measure is challenged by way of judicial review, the court should not grant a mandatory injunction halting its implementation if doing so would have the effect of predetermining the merits of the main cause without according the respondents a full hearing.
Administrative Law — Public Interest — Weight in Considering Injunctive Relief
In considering whether to grant an injunction against a public body, the court must take into account the wider public interest. Public interest is a paramount consideration, and courts should be slow to grant injunctions against government projects and agencies acting in the public interest as against private proprietary interests.
Civil Procedure — Mandatory Injunctions — Effect on Third Parties
In deciding whether to grant a mandatory injunction, the court must consider the possible hardship the injunction would create not only to the parties but also to third parties. Where third parties have acted in reliance on the impugned measure and entered into contracts, the court should weigh the risk of frustrating those contracts against the applicant's interest.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kamau Mucuha v The Ripples Ltd [1993] KLR 35
  • Locabail International Finance Ltd v Agro-Export and Others [1986] 1 All ER 901
  • Yahaya Kariisa v Attorney General and Another (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1994)
  • Uganda National Bureau of Standards v Ren Publishers Ltd and Multiplex Limited (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 635 of 2019)
  • R v Secretary of State for Transport ex parte Factortame Ltd [1990] 2 AC 85
  • Alcohol Industry Association of Uganda and Others v Attorney General and Uganda Revenue Authority (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 744 of 2019)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

CFAO Motors Uganda Limited & 7 Others v The Public Procurement & Disposal of Public Assets Authority & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 205 of 2024) [2024] UGHCCD 83 (17 May 2024)
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.