Infinity Telecom Uganda Ltd v Orange Uganda Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 630 of 2015)

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the application for a temporary injunction to preserve dealership agreements. The court held that the applicants failed to establish irreparable loss, relying on hearsay evidence regarding threats to terminate the dealership. The court found that any breach of contract could be adequately compensated in damages and that the applicants had not proved they would suffer irreparable loss. Costs were awarded in the cause.

Outcome

Application for temporary injunction dismissed

Facts

The applicants, Infinity Telecom Uganda Limited and Distribution Maestros Limited, were dealers of Orange Uganda Limited under dealership agreements. Civil Suit No. 689 of 2014 was pending between the parties and had been referred to arbitration on 9 July 2015. The applicants alleged that the respondent threatened to terminate their dealership contracts by creating new dealer territories and appointing a super dealer, which would breach the terms of the existing contracts and reduce their commissions. The applicants claimed they had secured loans by mortgaging properties and would suffer irreparable loss if the contracts were altered. The evidence of threats came from scouts who allegedly spoke to the applicants. The respondent contended it had a contractual right to terminate under clause 10 of the dealership agreement, that the applicants could be compensated in damages, and that the applicants had failed to meet business needs and sales targets.

Issues

1. Whether the applicants satisfied the conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction to preserve dealership agreements pending disposal of the main suit.
2. Whether the applicants established a prima facie case with a high probability of success.
3. Whether the applicants would suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated for in damages.
4. Whether the balance of convenience favoured the applicants.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• Costs in the cause.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (7)

• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 rule 7
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 rule 2
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 41 rule 1
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 8 rule 22
• Civil Procedure Act Section 64(c)
• Civil Procedure Act Section 98
• Evidence Act Section 63

Cases cited (6)

• Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji N. Katende [1985] HCB 43
• Jan Mohammed v Kassamal Virji Madhari [1953] 20 EACA 8
• Geoffrey Kisembo David v Standard Chartered Bank Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 344 of 2014)
• British American Tobacco Uganda Ltd v Lira Tobacco Stores (Miscellaneous Application No. 924 of 2013)
• Pan Afric Impex v Barclays Bank and ABSA Bank (Miscellaneous Application No. 804 of 2007)
• Subramanium v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965

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