Wakilii

Mwine v MTN (U) Limited & 2 Ors (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.162 OF 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 85 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for temporary injunction arising from Civil Suit No. 110 of 2018
Decision
Application for temporary injunction dismissed with costs to the respondents

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 dismissed the application for temporary injunction restraining MTN from interfering with the applicant's communications and restraining the Uganda Communications Commission from renewing MTN's licence. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case showing continued violation of his right to privacy, as the alleged hacking was a single isolated incident that occurred in February 2018. The court found no nexus between the licence renewal process and the alleged privacy violation, and held that any injury suffered could be adequately compensated in damages.

Outcome

Application for temporary injunction dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicant, a Member of Parliament, was on official duty in Malaysia from 6 to 14 February 2018. On 12 February 2018, he received messages that people were receiving texts from his phone number soliciting money, which he had not sent. Upon return to Uganda on 14 February 2018, he complained to the 1st respondent's shop at Victoria Mall Entebbe. The 1st respondent arrested two of its staff for involvement in hacking, swapping and interfering with the applicant's phone records and communications. The applicant alleged that the interference continued even after the arrests and sought temporary injunctions restraining the 1st respondent from interfering with his communications and restraining the 3rd respondent from renewing the 1st respondent's operating licence. The 1st respondent's licence renewal process had commenced in 2017 and was due to expire on 21 October 2018.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant established a prima facie case with probability of success.
  2. Whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury which could not be adequately compensated by an award of damages.
  3. Whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of a temporary injunction.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Prima Facie Case — Burden of Proof
When considering whether an applicant has established a prima facie case for a temporary injunction, the court must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried and not that the claim is frivolous or vexatious. The court does not require proof of a probability of success but only that there exists a triable issue.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Status Quo — Preservation
The purpose of granting a temporary injunction is to preserve matters in the status quo until the question to be investigated in the main suit is finally disposed of. Where the alleged violation occurred once at a specific point in time and there is no evidence of continuation, there is no status quo to preserve by way of temporary injunction.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Irreparable Injury — Adequacy of Damages
No interlocutory injunction should normally be granted if damages recoverable at common law would be an adequate remedy and the defendant would be in a financial position to pay them, however strong the plaintiff's claim may appear. Irreparable injury means an injury that is substantial or material and cannot be adequately compensated for in damages.
Civil Procedure — Temporary Injunction — Balance of Convenience — Public Interest
In determining the balance of convenience for grant of a temporary injunction, the court must weigh the rights of a single private person against the rights and interests of millions of other customers who depend on the respondent's services. Where the injunction sought would have far-reaching inconvenience to other stakeholders, the balance of convenience may favour the respondent.
Civil Procedure — Evidence — Hearsay — Newspaper Publication
A court cannot take evidence of a newspaper publication as true facts without the author having deposed an affidavit on oath as to the facts alleged therein. Such evidence amounts to hearsay and is inadmissible per se.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (2)

  • E.L.T Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Abdu Nasser Katende [1985] HCB 43
  • American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] ALLER 504

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Mwine v MTN (U) Limited & 2 Ors (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.162 OF 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 85 (25 May 2018)
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.