market steel wool under the trade name „NGARISHA‟. There is competition in the market as evidenced by the receipts attached to the pleadings and the correspondence from the Defendants lawyers to the Plaintiffs distributors to the effect that they should stop distributing the said product on the market. The similarity in the get up of the two products is no doubt capable of confusing the public. In the circumstances, I therefore accept the submission by the Applicant‟s counsel and I find that the Applicants case raises serious issues to be tried by this Court. In other words there is a serious contention between the two parties over the use of the name „NGARISHA‟. The application therefore satisfies the first condition for the grant of a temporary injunction. On the question of irreparable injury, Mr. Mugenyi submitted that they cannot tell in the circumstances, how much damage has been done or is likely to be done to his client‟s business. That in cases of passing off, the Courts acknowledge that it is hard to compute damages. That even if the Respondents are eventually told to render an account of the profits, he doesn‟t think they will be honest enough to tell the Court how much profit they have made. He relied on ruling number 3 in the case of Hassanali Sachoo (supra). Mr. Kiryowa contended that there is no proof passing off in this case; the Applicant has not shown that it will suffer any damage. That even if there is damage, it can be compensated by way of an account of profit. That although it is hard to compute damages, it is not impossible. The Applicant has not proved that it will suffer irreparable damage. It is not therefore entitled to a temporary injunction. I have considered both arguments. I agree with Mr. Mugenyi that the continued use of the Applicant‟s mark known as „NGARISHA‟ by the Respondents is likely to lead to irreparable damage on the side of the Applicant, which cannot be atoned for in damages, if the Applicant succeeds in its action. This is because as Mr. Mugenyi stated, it is not and it will not be easy to compute damages suffered in the circumstances of the case. This was evident in the case of P.J. Products Ltd —Vs-Hania (supra), where the Judge observed at page 54 that: “The assessment of damages is no easy task… It would be expected that the Defendants would have kept a careful record of the packets complained of that they withdrew. Mr. Haria said the packets complained of were still in the shops as late as 15