[2010] UGSC 4

[2010] UGSC 4

The Supreme Court held that it possesses inherent powers under Rule 2(2) of its Rules to grant orders necessary to prevent abuse of process and achieve justice, even against non-parties such as media houses. The court distinguished the present case from David Muhenda & 3 Others v Margaret Kamuje, noting that the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] UGSC 4
Parties
Applicant: Alcon International Ltd; Respondent: The New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd; Respondent: The Editor in Chief, New Vision & Sunday Vision
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interim Injunction
Outcome
application_granted
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Subjudice Contempt, Media Publication Rights, Access to Information, Inherent Judicial Powers
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Interim Injunction Subjudice Contempt Media Publication Rights Access to Information Inherent Judicial Powers

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alcon International Ltd

Applicant

The New Vision Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd

Respondent

The Editor in Chief, New Vision & Sunday Vision

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interim Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to grant an interim injunction restraining non-party media from publishing prejudicial material about a pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application meets the requirements for an interim injunction under the Supreme Court Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the publications complained of are prejudicial to the applicant and the pending proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that it possesses inherent powers under Rule 2(2) of its Rules to grant orders necessary to prevent abuse of process and achieve justice, even against non-parties such as media houses. The court distinguished the present case from David Muhenda & 3 Others v Margaret Kamuje, noting that the inherent power is not limited to parties to the proceedings. The court found that the applicant had demonstrated the pendency of both the appeal and a substantive application for a permanent injunction, and that there was a serious threat of further prejudicial publication. The court emphasized that it was not necessary at this interim stage to determine whether the publications...

Court Disposition

application_granted

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered to stop publishing in the print media any matter prejudicial to the applicant in respect of Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2009, which is subjudice, until the pending substantive application No. 03 of 2010 is heard and determined.
  • Costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the substantive application.