Wakilii

Eastern Cargolines Consults Limited and Another v Rjf International (pty) Limited and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 611 of 2012)

High Court · [2021] UGCOMMC 162 · 2021 Injunction Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for extension of interim injunction order arising from civil suit
Decision
Interim injunction granted pending disposal of main application for temporary injunction

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

Court granted an interim injunction restraining respondents from disposing of goods stored in shipping containers pending determination of the temporary injunction application. The ex parte interim order could not be extended due to absence of proof of service within three days as required by Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 rule 3A. However, the court found applicants established a prima facie case for non-payment of transport fees, a real threat of irreparable loss from imminent auction under s.57 of the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004, and actual danger to their ability to recover charges if goods were disposed of.

Outcome

Interim injunction granted pending disposal of main application for temporary injunction

Facts

The applicants, Eastern Cargolines Consults Ltd and Portland Freighters Tanzania Ltd, delivered goods as transporters but did not receive payment. The goods have been warehoused for over two years. The applicants sought extension of an ex parte interim injunction order issued by the Assistant Registrar. No proof of service on the respondents was furnished within the three-day period prescribed by the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 rule 3A. Under s.57 of the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004, the goods could be sold by public auction after nine months of warehousing plus one month's notice. The applicants claim to have no knowledge of other assets from which to recover their fees if the goods are disposed of.

Issues

  1. Whether the ex parte interim injunction order can be extended beyond three days without proof of service.
  2. Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success.
  3. Whether the applicants will suffer irreparable damage if the interim injunction does not issue.
  4. Whether there is a real threat or danger that cannot be eliminated by an expeditious hearing of the main application.
  5. Whether an interim injunction should be granted to preserve the status quo pending disposal of the main application.

Orders

  • Interim injunction issued restraining the respondents, their agents, workers, tenants or persons claiming under them, from removing, auctioning, selling, transferring, disposing of or through other ways alienating or creating encumbrances over the property stored in the specified shipping containers until the final disposal of the application for a temporary injunction.
  • Costs of this application to abide the outcome of the main application.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interim Injunctions — Extension of Ex Parte Orders — Proof of Service Requirement
An ex parte interim order granted under rule 3A of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 is granted only in exceptional circumstances for a period not exceeding three days from the date of issue. Its lifespan can only be extended when the applicant files proof of service on the opposite party before lapse of the three days. Where no such proof is furnished, the interim injunction lapses after three days and cannot be extended.
Civil Procedure — Interim Injunctions — Conditions for Grant — Prima Facie Case
For an interim injunction to be granted, the applicant must establish a prima facie case with a likelihood of success. A prima facie case is established where the court is satisfied that the claim is not frivolous or vexatious and that there are serious questions to be tried.
Civil Procedure — Interim Injunctions — Irreparable Damage — Definition and Test
Irreparable damage means damages that cannot be easily ascertained because there is no fixed pecuniary standard of measurement, or loss that cannot be compensated for with money. An interim injunction will be granted if failure to do so might compromise the applicant's ability to assert their claim in case of a decision in their favour, thereby occasioning a loss that cannot be compensated for with money.
Civil Procedure — Interim Injunctions — Real Threat or Danger — Imminent Disposal Under Statute
A real threat or danger is constituted by actual and imminent threat or a physical danger that is real, would occur within an immediate time frame, and could result in irreparable loss before an expeditious hearing of the main application can eliminate the danger. Where goods have been warehoused for over two years and may be sold by public auction under s.57 of the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004, the danger of disposal is imminent and justifies a restraining order.
Civil Procedure — Interim Injunctions — Scope of Restraint — Preservation of Status Quo
The main purpose for issuance of an interim injunction order is the preservation of the suit property and the maintenance of the status quo between the parties pending the disposal of the main application. The court should consider the threat posed and limit the restraint to the extent of damage or injury which cannot be readily quantified in monetary terms or which cannot generally be cured by an award of damages.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2019 rule 3A
  • East African Community Customs Management Act 2004 s.57

Cases cited (6)

  • Fellowes and Son v Fisher [1976] 1 QB 122
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396
  • Geilla v Cassman Brown Co Ltd [1973] EA 358
  • GAPCO Uganda Limited v Kaweesa and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 259 of 2013)
  • Godfrey Sekitoleko and Four Others v Seezi Peter Mutabazi and Two Others (Civil Appeal No. 65 of 2011)
  • City Council of Kampala v Donozio Musisi Sekyaya (Civil Application No. 3 of 2000)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Eastern Cargolines Consults Limited and Another v Rjf International (pty) Limited and 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application 611 of 2012) [2021] UGCommC 162 (9 April 2021)
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.