[2016] UGCommC 81

[2016] UGCommC 81

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case with a high probability of success, as their evidence of threatened termination was based on hearsay, which is inadmissible. The applicants also did not prove that they would suffer irreparable loss that could not be compensated by damages, as remedies for breach of contract are available. Since the court was not in doubt regarding these grounds, it did not consider the balance of convenience. The application for a temporary injunction was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2016] UGCommC 81
Parties
Applicant: Infinity Telecom Uganda Limited; Applicant: Distribution Maestros Limited; Respondent: Orange Uganda Limited
Court
Commercial Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
28 June 2016
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application No. 630 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Temporary Injunction, Contract Termination, Dealership Agreements, Preservation of Status Quo, Arbitration Reference
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Temporary Injunction Contract Termination Dealership Agreements Preservation of Status Quo Arbitration Reference

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Infinity Telecom Uganda Limited

Applicant

Distribution Maestros Limited

Applicant

Orange Uganda Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a temporary injunction to preserve the dealership agreements pending disposal of the main suit.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case with a probability of success.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants will suffer irreparable loss not compensable by damages if the injunction is not granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a prima facie case with a high probability of success, as their evidence of threatened termination was based on hearsay, which is inadmissible. The applicants also did not prove that they would suffer irreparable loss that could not be compensated by damages, as remedies for breach of contract are available. Since the court was not in doubt regarding these grounds, it did not consider the balance of convenience. The application for a temporary injunction was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for a temporary injunction is dismissed.
  • Costs will be in the cause.