[2024] UGHCCD 203

# THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

# **CIVIL DIVISION**

# **MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS NO.1243 & 1262 OF 2024**

# (ARISING FROM MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.0263 & JRC 0049 OF 2024)

MUGISHA HASHIM MUGISHA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

### **VERSUS**

- 1. UGANDA LAW SOCIETY - 2. EDDIE NANGULU - MUNABI PHILLIP::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: - 4. KALALI STEVEN - 5. DENIS KUSASIRA - 6. ELISON KARUHANGA - 7. PROF. CHRISTOPHER MBAZIRA - 8. OCEN MILTON

### **AND**

**PHEONA NABASA GLADYS WALL ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::**

### **VERSUS**

- 1. UGANDA LAW SOCIETY - **2. MOSES MWASE** *....................................*

# **BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE SSEKAANA MUSA**

# **CONSOLIDATED RULING**

The applicants brought their respective applications by way of chambers summons against the respondents under Sections 64(e) and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, section 36 and 38 of the Judicature Act cap 13 and Order 41 r 1, 2, 3, & 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, for orders that;

- *a) A temporary injunction order doth issue restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents from implementing a purported Council decision dated 24th of November 2024 and or convening the Extraordinary General Meeting on 17th December 2024 until the final disposal of Miscellaneous Cause No. 1243 of 2024.* - *b) A mandatory injunction order doth issue restoring the 3rd respondent as Secretary and Council member of the 1st respondent until the final disposal of Miscellaneous Cause No.1243 of 2024.* - *c) A Mandatory injunction order doth issue restoring Turyamusiima Geofrey as Council member of the 1 st respondent until the final disposal of Miscellaneous Cause 1243 of 2024.* - *d) Costs of this application be provided for.*

In the 2nd application, the applicant equally seeks a similar order but specifically about her removal from the list of nominated candidates for the position of representative to the Judicial Service Commission;

*A temporary injunction doth issue restraining the respondents, its agents, servants or representatives from holding elections for its representatives to the Judicial Service Commission at the Extraordinary General Meeting scheduled for the 17th day of December 2024 or any meeting scheduled thereafter, pending the determination of the substantive suit.*

The grounds in support of this application are set out briefly in the chamber summons and the respective affidavits in support of the applicants which briefly states;

1. That the applicant filed an application for judicial review against the respondents challenging among others, the manner and procedures followed by the 1st respondent to suspend the 3rd respondent, 3rd respondent expelling the President and Vice President of the 1st respondent, the appointment of the 2nd respondent as an Interim Secretary, requisitioning and calling for the Extraordinary General Meeting of 17th December 2024.

- *2.* The council responsible to run the affairs and business of the 1st respondent is not properly constituted thereby rendering it incapable to perform its statutory mandate. Pursuant to section 9 of the Uganda Law Society Act, the management of the 1st respondent is exercised by a Council composed of the *President, Vice President, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, a Secretary, a Treasurer and four other members.* - 3. That on 14th October 2024, the President of the 1st respondent issued Executive Order RNB No. 1 of 2024 expelling the Attorney General and Solicitor General from the Council. There is no duly constituted Council since the President expelled the Attorney General and Solicitor General who are statutorily appointed council members thereof. - 4. On the 24th of November 2024, the 1st respondent illegally and without following due process, suspended the 3rd respondent and council member-Central Region and illegally appointed the 2nd respondent as Interim Secretary. The 1st respondent convened an online meeting which was constituted by 6 out of 10 council members. - 5. The respondents have acted and continue to threaten acting ultra vires, illegally and or unlawfully contrary to the Uganda Law Society Act, the Uganda Law Society Charter and the rules of natural justice to the detriment of the applicant by using illegal policies and methods, usurping powers and authority of the top organ of the 1st respondent. - 6. That if the 1st respondent is not restrained from implementing its decision dated 24th November 2024 and or convening the purported Extraordinary General meeting on 17th December 2024, the respondents are likely to continue breaching the law. The Extraordinary general meeting intends to remove 3rd respondent and council member-central region.

- 7. The 3rd respondent's illegal removal from office by the 1st respondent and illegal appointment of the 2nd respondent in an interim capacity necessitates the grant of temporary injunction to restore the 3rd respondent in office. - *8.* That the application raises serious triable issues and serious questions of law and fact that warrant surgical investigationsthat warrant investigations in the main suit and or application which inter alia include; - *(a) Expulsion of the Attorney General & Solicitor General, whether the respondent's council is now duly constituted.* - *(b) Whether the 1st respondent is in contempt of the court Order in the case of Kalali Stephen v Uganda Law Society.* - *(c) Whether the 1st respondent acted ultra vires and procedurally improper when he suspended the 3rd respondent and Council representative-Central Region.* - *(d) Whether the 3rd respondent by purportedly expelling the president of the 1 st respondent acted ultra vires and procedurally improper.* - *(e) Whether the respondent 1st respondent's meeting that resulted into a decision dated 24th November 2024 was properly convened.* - *(f) Whether the 2nd respondent was properly and legally appointed by the 1st respondent to serve in an interim capacity given the circumstances.* - 9. The balance of convenience weighs in favour of the applicant by restraining the respondents from further breach of the law while conducting the 1st respondent's business and or affairs illegally.

In the 2nd application, the applicant filed an affidavit in reply contending among others;

1. That on 26th day of November 2024, the 1st respondent issued/published a notice of election of Judicial Service Commission Nominees of ULS to be held on the 17th of December 2024, wherein the respondent invited potential candidates to submit the pre-requisite requirements for their nomination for the said elections.

- 2. The applicant duly complied with the said notice and was duly nominated on the 3rd day of December 2025 and thereafter was issued with a duly signed and nomination form and her name was entered on the list of nominated candidates to vie for the position of the respondent's representative to the judicial Service Commission through elections to be conducted on the 17th day of December 2024. - 3. That on the evening of the 3rd December 2024, the President of the respondent through his X-account/page, published a purported final list of the duly nominated candidates which omitted the applicants name. - 4. That the 1st respondent has scheduled elections for the representatives to the Judicial Service Commission at the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to be held on the 17th of December 2024 at the Imperial Resort Hotel, Entebbe, without the applicant's participation as a candidate. - 5. That the Elections Committee of the 1st respondent chaired by the 2nd respondent has orchestrated the expulsion of the applicant from the ongoing campaigns and has condoned the attacks by the president of the 1st respondent towards the applicant. - 6. That these irregularities have resulted in a lack of transparency, accountability and fairness in the electoral process, which undermines the integrity of the elections. - 7. That the main application has a great likelihood of succeeding and that the applicant will suffer irreparable loss, which cannot be atoned in terms of damages. - 8. That the balance of convenience favours the applicant and it is necessary for the court to grant a temporary injunction for the purposes of maintain the status quo by halting the elections pending the determination of main application for temporary injunction.

In opposition to this application the 1 st respondents filed an affidavit through the Acting Chief Executive Officer Christine Awori and the 2nd respondent filed his affidavit in reply wherein they vehemently opposed the grant of the orders being sought briefly stating that;

- 1. The 1 st respondent's council in a bid to comply with the said decision in Miscellaneous Cause No. 129 of 2024 Kalali v ULS, scheduled an Extraordinary General meeting on 17th December 2024 for purposes of inter alia, conducting the election of the Society's Representatives to the Judicial Service Commission. - 2. That the nominations for the said election were duly conducted, candidates are campaigning and members are anticipating the scheduled electoral exercise on 17th December 2024. That 20 member of the respondent petitioned council to hold an extraordinary General meeting to consider the accounts of the 1st respondent as earlier agreed at the Annual General Meeting. - 3. That the 1st respondent has incurred significant expenses on venue hire (a sum of Ugx 27,715,544/=) Events Management (9,520,000/=) inter alia, to ensure success of the extraordinary General Meeting scheduled for the 17th December 2024 at Imperial Resort Beach Hotel Entebbe. - 4. That Uganda Law Society does not require that notices for the members of the Society be strictly and specifically signed by the Secretary. Meetings are convened by Council. - 5. That the document issued by the Society's suspended Secretary, Phillip Munaabi, purporting to expel the President and Vice President had no legal and practical effect at all. Both office holders are normally performing their duties that they were elected to perform and the proceedings to set aside the said documents are merely superfluous.

- 6. That then orders sought in the applications are largely cosmetic and are calculated to aid the 3rd respondent, who dissociated himself from the council of the 1st respondent. That by virtue of the void document he circulated, made it clear that he did not wish to associated with or be part of the Council of the 1st respondent hence his comical attempts at creating a caretaker Committee. - 7. The council resolved to call for an extraordinary general meeting to consider his removal from office, appoint an Acting Secretary and temporarily suspend the said Phillip Munaabi since he had already disowned the same council and could not participate in its deliberations nor recognise it.

The 2nd respondent in his affidavit contended that he is the Council Member representing Eastern region and the Interim Honorary Secretary:

- 1. That he is aware the term of office of the present representatives of the 1st respondent to Judicial Service Commission ends by the 31st December 2024 and it is therefore necessary for the 1st respondent's membership to discharge its constitutional obligation to elect nominees for consideration by the head of state for appointment as its representatives to this body. - 2. That any delays by the 1st respondent in forwarding its nominees to the Head of State would constitute an omission under the Constitution and the present litigation is clearly designed to frustrate discharge of that constitutional role. The complaints and concerns of the applicant can be addressed within the ambit of the extraordinary general meeting. - 3. That on the basis of the undertaking at the Annual General Meeting and the Members Petition, the Extraordinary General meeting is scheduled for 17th December 2024 for members to consider the accounts of the 1st respondent since the books of accounts of the previous council have not been considered and adopted or queried by the membership of the society. This has fundamental implications on the management of the 1st respondent's finances and accountability of the members and partners.

- 4. That any further deferral of the said consideration protracts the anomaly and occasions injustice to the membership and development partners of the 1st respondent. It hampers the continued business of the current council which is yet to obtain final position of the membership on those accounts. - 5. That the suspension of the 3rd respondent by council was in exercise of its statutory powers under Uganda Law Society Act and the membership will determine whether he should be removed from Council or not.

The rest of the respondents *(Kalali Steven, Denis Kusasira, Elison Karuhanga, Prof. Christopher Mbazira and Ocen Milton)* sought to be added and were indeed added by an order of court filed their respective affidavits and I did not find anything different from what was already stated in the earlier affidavits apart from the 7th respondent who had some different averments which can be summarized as follows;

7 th Respondent stated as follows;

That the Attorney General and Solicitor General have for a long time been redundant and uninterested members of the council and that following their expulsion the said members have never expressed any discontent and are comfortable with the subsisting status quo of Council.

That the suspension from the council was an act of accountability by the majority of the council members to the members of the 1st respondent pending these members re-election/removal of the on the 17th December 2024 and there is nothing illegal about this.

The 1st respondent in the 2nd application filed an affidavit in reply through Brownie Ebal a member and secretary of the 1st respondent's Election Committee briefly as follows;

1. The present Elections Committee members Moses Mwase (Chairperson), Samuel Kiriaghe (Vice Chairperson), Albert Collins Kyeyune, Josephine Niwamanya Kiggundu and Brownie (Secretary) were appointed for a four year term by the 1st respondent's council led by former President Bernard Oundo.

- 2. That on Tuesday 3rd December 2024, the applicant was given a nomination certificate by the Elections Committee but she was excluded from the final list of nominated candidates once it was established that she did not qualify in law and the said certificate was issued to her in error. - 3. That the said certificate of nomination was interim in nature pending completion of nomination and final list of nominated candidates communicated to membership did not include her name. - 4. That upon further scrutiny of the applicant's documentation, it was established that she enrolled as an advocate on 16th June 2010 and was admitted to the membership of the 1st respondent in 2011. The Election Committee established that the applicant had only 14.6 years standing as on Tuesday 3rd December 2024 and she was immediately notified that her nomination was cancelled. - 5. That the applicant demanded for a formal hearing from the Elections Committee and the same took place on the said date of 3rd December 2024, from 7:30pm to 8;00pm in presence of the applicant and her husband, Gerald Ambrose Wall. The Committee formally notified her that her nomination had been cancelled. - 6. The Committee chairperson formally communicated to the applicant by email and reiterated this position on 4th December. The applicant's advocate wrote to the Chair of the Elections Committee protesting the disqualification and received a response dated 6th December 2024 reiterating the position that she was not qualified. - 7. That the complainant who is not satisfied with the decision made by the Elections Committee of the 1st respondent is required, under the provisions of Regulation 19(5) of the Uganda Law Society (Elections) Regulations, 2016 to petition the Election Appeals Committee of the 1st respondent.

## *Whether the court should issue a temporary and mandatory injunction in this matter as prayed for in the application*

The parties were given timelines to file their brief arguments and submissions and the application to make some highlights orally was denied.

The 1st applicant was represented by *Counsel Aisu Isaac Nicholas, Ssekajja Ukasha* and *Kigula Mahmood*. The 2nd applicant was represented by Counsel Robinson Wamani while the 1st & 2 nd in both applications were represented by *Counsel Jude Byabakama, Drabo Lillian, Samuel Kakande, Mariam Nansukusa, Oscar Kiiza and Derrick Bazekuketta.* The 3rd respondent-self represented, the 4 respondent also self-represented after his lawyers never turned up in court, the 5th respondent was represented by *Counsel Joshua Byabashaija*, the 6th respondent was represented by *Counsel Bruce Musinguzi*, the 7th respondent was represented by *Ssekanjako Abubaker* and the 8th respondent was represented by *Counsel Francis Kiira*.

## *DETERMINATION*

The applicant's counsel submitted that there is a pending application for judicial review which raises serious triable issues which raises serious questions of law and fact thereby warranting investigations by this court. This arises from the conduct of the 1st to 3rd respondent's exercise of their powers as council members apparently in contravention of the law where the same council members expelled the Attorney General and Solicitor General from the council, later the Secretary expelling the President and Vice President and later some 6 council members suspending the Secretary of Council and Central representative without according them a right to a fair hearing and have thus called the Extraordinary General Meeting to have them formally removed. These questions require the court to investigate and thus the need to halt the slated Extraordinary General meeting.

The actions of the 1st & 2nd respondent suspended the law when they convened their meetings without giving their victims their constitutional rights to be heard, and thus went ahead and decided on matters that were not within their mandate especially when the council of the 1st respondent was not duly constituted.

Counsel further submitted that the meeting is being sought illegal and will make resolutions which are illegal. The purported recall of the 1st respondent on JSC by its president and subsequent intention to organize elections in that respect in in fact ultra vires and illegal.

The applicant's counsel contended that the 1st respondent's council unlawfully convened an online meeting on 24th November 2024 and purportedly suspended the 3rd respondent and central representative unlawfully and in excess of their powers which in fact continues to affect the Constitution of the 1st respondent and seeks a mandatory injunction to keep them in office.

The applicant's counsel submitted that the acts of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents and conduct would set a wrong precedent and promote indiscipline, mayhem, impunity, hypocrisy and opportunism on the sovereignty of the top organ of the 1st respondent. They contended that the main application will not be resolved by grant of a mandatory injunction.

The 2nd applicant contended that she was unjustifiably excluded from the list of nominees for the elections of the 1st respondent representatives to the Judicial Service Commission. The applicant seeks this court to investigate the legality of being struck off the list of nominees. It is his contention that there is a serious question to be investigated or interrogated to determine he exclusion from the elections and yet she had been duly nominated by the Respondent's Elections Committee.

The applicant contended that she will suffer irreparable damage that cannot be compensated by damages. The applicant's non- participation cannot be atoned or compensated for in damages. She prayed that the status quo be maintained until the final disposal of the main application for judicial review.

The 1st respondent's counsel submitted that there is no prima facie case and that the 2nd applicant's application is grounded on illegalities and that a person seeking an injunction must establish a prima facie case against the public authority that it acting unlawfully and that in case of conflicting interests, the interest of the public at large should prevail over the interest of a few individuals.

The respondent contend that what the applicant is seeking to do is to prevent the 1 st respondent from fulfilling its constitutional duty to select nominees for the appointment to the Judicial Service Commission.

The respondent's counsel applicant contends that the 1st applicant is a body made up of over 5000 members who have been informed by the scheduled Extraordinary General Meeting. The 1st applicant has secured clearance from Judiciary on the scheduled date and members are ready to participate in the election process.

The respondent's counsel submitted that the injunction sought is bad in law and its is intended to use this court to perpetuate illegalities. Once granted it will defeat the directives of this court in MC No. 129 of 2023 Kalali Steven v Uganda Law Society; deny members of the 1st respondent to consider their accounts from the previous year.

The respondents contended that the applicant is not in any way directly injured by the activities that are slated to occur on the mentioned date. He is not contesting in the elections slated to occur, he is not a suspended member of council His interests will not be jeopardized in any way.

The respondents counsel argued further that the Extraordinary General Meeting is intended to consider the accounts of the previous financial year which is a statutory mandate that members exercise at the end of every year at a General meeting. This is only fair considering that one of the major ways the 1st respondent is financed is through yearly membership subscriptions. Injuncting the said members from scrutinizing their accounts will be against the rights and duties imposed under the Uganda Law Society Act.

The respondents' counsel further submitted that the decision to hold an election is not being challenged and that the injunction is restricted to only the decisions in the notice of 24th November, 2024. It was their contention that the decision should only be restricted to the decisions in the notices of 24th November, 2024 that do not touch on the election of the 1st respondent's nominees to the Judicial Service Commission.

The respondents' counsel further submitted that the grant of temporary injunction will would upset the status quo and infact dispose of and conclusively determine the main cause. That the applicant could adequately be compensated for any delay by way of damages.

## *Analysis*

The granting of a temporary injunction is an exercise of judicial discretion as was discussed in the case of *Equator International Distributors Ltd v Beiersdorf East Africa Ltd & Others Misc. Application No.1127 Of 2014.*Discretionary powers are to be exercised judiciously as was noted in the case of *Yahaya Kariisa vs Attorney General & Another, S. C. C. A. No.7 of 1994 [1997] HCB 29***.**

The law on granting an Order of temporary injunction is set out in *section 64(c) of the Civil Procedure Act* which provides as follows;

In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the court may, if it is so prescribed-

*(c) grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience commit the person guilty of it to prison and order that his or her property is attached and sold.*

*Order 41 rule 2 of Civil Procedure Rules* provides that in any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of any contract or other injury of any kind…..apply to court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or any injury complained of……

For a temporary injunction to be granted, court is guided by the following as was noted in the case of *Shiv Construction vs Endesha Enterprises Ltd Civil Appeal No.34 of 1992*

1. The Applicant must show that there is a substantial question to be investigated with chances of winning the main suit on his part;

- 2. The Applicant would suffer irreparable injury which damages would not be capable of atoning if the temporary injunction is denied and the *status quo* not maintained; and - 3. The balance of convenience is in the favour of the Application.

It should be noted that where there is a legal right either at law or in equity, the court has power to grant an injunction in protection of that right. Further to note, a party is entitled to apply for an injunction as soon as his/her legal right is invaded as was discussed in the case of *Titus Tayebwa vs Fred Bogere and Eric Mukasa Civil Appeal No.3 of 2009.*

The applicant contends that the respondent is committing an illegality contrary to Uganda Law Society Act by convening a meeting to remove the 3rd respondent and Central representative-Turyamusiima Geoffrey. The 1st respondent's counsel contends that they are upholding the constitution and the law as a public body. The 1 st respondent cannot come to uphold the law which they have heinously breached by dismissing their own and thus hide under the large membership of over 5,000 advocates. The meeting that is being sought will make resolutions or is intended to make resolutions which are intended to cover the illegalities committed or validate the illegalities of suspending the two council members.

Before deciding to grant or to deny a temporary injunction, it's important to consider if there is a prima facie case, according to *Lord Diplock* in *American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396 [407—408],* the applicant must first satisfy court that his claim discloses a serious issue to be tried. The applicant has satisfied this court that there is a prima facie case or serious questions to be investigated or interrogated to determine the legality of the council's decisions and the procedure followed by the council after suspending the two members.

The burden is on the applicantsto satisfy the court by leading evidence or otherwise that they have a *prima facie* case in his favour. But a *prima facie case* should not be confused with a case proved to the hilt. It is no part of the court's function at this stage to try and resolve the conflict neither of evidence nor to decide complicated

questions of fact and law which call for detailed arguments and mature considerations.

It is after a *prima facie case* is made out that the court will proceed to consider other factors. This application raises serious issues to be tried in the main cause and or a prima facie case as highlighted in the affidavit of the applicant as hereunder;

- *1. After the expulsion of the Attorney General & Solicitor General, whether the respondent's council is now duly constituted.* - *2. Whether the 1st respondent is in contempt of the court Order in the case of Kalali Stephen v Uganda Law Society.* - *3. Whether the 1st respondent acted ultra vires and procedurally improper when he suspended the 3rd respondent and Council representative-Central Region.* - *4. Whether the 3rd respondent by purportedly expelling the president of the 1 st respondent acted ultra vires and procedurally improper.* - *5. Whether the respondent 1st respondent's meeting that resulted into a decision dated 24th November 2024 was properly convened.* - *6. Whether the 2nd respondent was properly and legally appointed by the 1st respondent to serve in an interim capacity given the circumstances.* - *7. Whether the applicant (Pheona Nabasa Wall) was lawfully and fairly denominated?*

The court shall not at this stage of the hearing indulge in resolving the conflicts of evidence on the facts on which the claims of either party may likely depend, nor decide difficult questions of law which call for detailed arguments and mature consideration. These are matters to be dealt with at the trial.

The court should always be willing to extend its hand to protect a citizen who is being wronged or whose rights are being violated or when there are illegalities which are about to be committed against the law. The applicant believes the convening of the meeting; the council will commit illegalities which ought to be stopped in order to uphold the rule of law. But at the same time, judicial proceedings cannot be used to protect or perpetuate a wrong committed by a majority because they have numbers against the minority.

The court's power to grant a temporary injunction is extraordinary in nature and it can be exercised cautiously and with circumspection. An injunction is intended to impose only such restraint as may suffice to stop the mischief complained of. The applicant has raised serious questions which invite this court to investigate and interrogate and the respondent seems to agree and they have only resorted to making a case for approving accounts of the previous year. The statutory obligations under the Uganda law Society Act should be complied with in entirety and not to be evoked where it favours a special group or because there is an election at stake where candidates have invested heavily.

Grant of temporary injunction being equitable remedy, it is in discretion of the court and such discretion must be exercised in favour of the applicant only if the court is satisfied that, unless the respondent is restrained by an order of injunction, irreparable loss or damage will be caused to the applicant. An injunction is designed to combat and or arrest a *fait accomplii* which the 1st respondent has attempted in the circumstances of the case. The suspended members have not been heard and they have been deprived of their mandate given by the electorate. The 2nd applicant has been denominated and cannot take part in the elections after she was duly nominated this invites court to exercise the discretion in their favour. The court grants such relief *ex debitio justitiae*, i.e to meet the ends of justice. See *Section 64 of the Civil Procedure Act*.

The court must keep in mind the principles of justice and fair play and should exercise its discretion only if the ends of justice require it. It has also been shown by the applicants that the balance of convenience lies in maintaining the *status quo since* the Extraordinary general meeting is intended to perpetuate illegalities to validity the illegal suspensions and requisitioning of meetings of council as well as the Extra General meetings. The balance of convenience cannot be ignored in this application and should not be weighed against the respondents who believe their election should override other illegalities committed by council in suspending council members without due process and denominating other candidates without a hearing. The duty to uphold the law should be sacrosanct for everything done by Uganda Law Society and should not be cherry picked simply because the accounts or elections have a higher stake that we breach other provisions with impunity.

The applicant has also sought an order for mandatory injunction against the 1st respondent. It should be noted that a mandatory injunction is intended not to allow a party retain a position of advantage that has been obtained through a planned and blatant unlawful act or extreme fraudulent means intended to alter the status quo or the prevailing state of affairs. Therefore, a litigant cannot wrongfully and illegally bring about the state of affairs and later seek to preserve that state of affairs as the status quo. Therefore, a court is usually much more reluctant to grant a mandatory injunction and will only do so when it is clearly necessary for the effectuation of justice. *See Hon. Lt [Rtd] Saleh M. W Kamba and Anor v AG Constitutional Petition No. 16 of 2013 & National Resistance Movement v AG & Ors Constitutional Petition No. 21 of 2013 Joseph Kwesiga v AG Constitutional Petition No. 21 & 25 of 2013.*

A mandatory injunction is an order of court granted as restorative order intended to undo what has already been done. It is an equitable relief and it is thus discretionary. Its purpose is to preserve the status quo and the status quo to be preserved is the one that existed before the wrongful act(s) of the respondent. It can only be issued in special circumstances and in clear and obvious cases including 'urgency or pressing need'. See *East African Spinners Ltd & Others v Bedi Investments Ltd Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1994; Chin Bay Ching v Merchant ventures Pte Lts [2005] 3 SLR(R) 142*

The damage of suspending the 3rd respondent and representative of Central Region is so serious and material such that the restoration of the previous status quo is the only solution whereby justice can adequately be done and to remove the impasse in the conduct of council affairs as the court determines the serious triable issues in the main applications for judicial review.

Where the remedy of mandatory injunction is sought at the interlocutory stage, it ought not to be granted save in exceptional circumstances such as in plain and obvious cases. Moreover, before granting a mandatory injunction the court had to feel a high degree of assurance that at the trial it would appear that the injunction had rightly been granted. See *Locabail International Finance Ltd v Agro Export and Others [1986] 1 All ER 901*

In the result for the reasons stated herein above the joint applications have succeeded and the costs shall be in the cause. The court grants the following orders;

- *a) A temporary injunction order doth issue restraining the 1st and 2nd respondents from implementing a purported Council decision dated 24th of November 2024 and or convening the Extraordinary General Meeting on 17th December 2024 until the final disposal of Miscellaneous Cause No. 1243 of 2024.* - *b) A temporary injunction doth issue restraining the respondents, its agents, servants or representatives from holding elections for its representatives to the Judicial Service Commission at the Extraordinary General Meeting scheduled for the 17th day of December 2024 or any meeting scheduled thereafter, pending the determination of the main cause.* - *c) A Mandatory injunction order doth issue restoring the 3rd respondent as Secretary and Council member of the 1st respondent until the final disposal of Miscellaneous Cause No.1243 of 2024.* - *d) A Mandatory injunction order doth issue restoring Turyamusiima Geofrey as Council member of the 1st respondent until the final disposal of Miscellaneous Cause 1243 of 2024.*

It is so ordered.

*SSEKAANA MUSA JUDGE 13th December 2024*