Wakilii

Giella v Cassman Brown

Unknown · [1973] EACA 87 Appeal Allowed — Injunction Discharged AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from High Court of Uganda decision granting interim injunction
Decision
Temporary injunction set aside; matter remitted to High Court for hearing on the merits

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

Held that the interim injunction was wrongly granted. Although a prima facie case existed, the respondent failed to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable injury not compensable in damages. The restraint of trade covenant covering six major East African cities for three years was of doubtful reasonability given the lack of evidence about the nature of the business. The Court set aside the injunction and awarded costs to the appellant.

Outcome

Temporary injunction set aside; matter remitted to High Court for hearing on the merits

Facts

The appellant was employed by the respondent company under a contract containing a covenant not to engage in similar business within ten miles of the central post offices of six major East African cities, including Kampala and Jinja, for three years after termination. After his employment ended by notice, the appellant joined a firm allegedly carrying on similar business in the same street in Kampala. The respondent sent a warning letter, then filed suit alleging breach of the undertaking, solicitation of business, disclosure of confidential information, and enticement of employees. The respondent obtained a chamber summons for temporary injunction on 1 June 1972. At the hearing on 7 June 1972, the trial judge refused the appellant's request for adjournment to file an affidavit in reply and granted the temporary injunction. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing an adjournment to allow the appellant to file an affidavit in reply.
  2. Whether the interim injunction order was defective for failing to specify its duration.
  3. Whether the respondent company demonstrated a reasonable probability of success at trial on the enforceability of the restraint of trade covenant.
  4. Whether the respondent company established that damages would be an inadequate remedy, justifying interim injunctive relief.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Temporary injunction discharged.
  • Order for costs in the High Court set aside.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the appellant.
  • Costs in the High Court awarded to the appellant.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Applications — Grant or Refusal of Adjournment
The grant or refusal of an adjournment is an exercise of judicial discretion with which an appellate court is reluctant to interfere, particularly where the applicant had sufficient notice to act with due diligence.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Grant of Interlocutory Injunction — Appellate Review
The granting of an interim injunction is an exercise of judicial discretion and an appellate court will not interfere unless it is shown that the discretion has not been exercised judicially.
Civil Procedure — Injunctions — Conditions for Grant of Interlocutory Injunction
An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must show a prima facie case with a probability of success. An injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages. If the court is in doubt, it will decide the application on the balance of convenience.
Contract Law — Restraint of Trade — Validity of Partial Restraint in Employment Contract
Contracts in restraint of trade are generally invalid as being contrary to public policy, but a partial restraint in a contract of employment may be enforced if it is reasonable in the interests of both contracting parties, the proof of which rests on the person seeking to enforce the restriction.
Contract Law — Restraint of Trade — Scope of Protection for Employer
An employer is entitled to have his trade secrets protected and to protection against the enticement of old customers, but is not entitled to protect himself from competition per se. The employer is only entitled to such restraints as are necessary for the protection of his legitimate rights, which must depend on the character of the business.
Contract Law — Restraint of Trade — Test of Validity
In determining the validity of a restraint of trade clause, one does not look to see whether a valid agreement could have been made, but whether the agreement actually made was valid.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Interlocutory Applications
The proper order for costs on a successful interlocutory application is that costs should be costs in the cause, although an unsuccessful applicant will normally be penalised in costs.

Legislation cited (2)

  • Contract Act Cap. 75
  • Order 27 rule 2(2)

Cases cited (5)

  • Sargent v Patel (EACA Appeal No. 16 of 1949)
  • E.A. Industries v Trufoods [1972] EA 420
  • Mason v Provident Clothing & Supply Co [1913] AC 724
  • Herbert Morris v Saxelby [1916] 1 AC 688
  • Attwood v Lamont [1920] 3 KB 571

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Giella v Cassman Brown [1973] EA 358
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.