Previous 1 / 10 Next

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA [CIVIL DIVISION] MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 532 OF 2021 (ARISING FROM MISC. CAUSE NO. 225 OF 2021) LEGAL BRAINS TRUST (LBT) LTD ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT VERSUS ATTORNEY GENERAL :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE BONIFACE WAMALA RULING Introduction [1] The Applicant brought this application by Chamber Summons under Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 71, Section 33 of the Judicature Act Cap 13 and Order 52 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1, seeking for orders that; a) A temporary injunction restraining the Respondent and its agents or servants or any other person or authority from implementing or enforcing presidential statutory directives, instruments cabinet and resolutions, other agreements, documents through contracts, which the Government of Uganda purportedly engaged, contracted or authorized a Russian company called JOINT STOCK COMPANY GLOBAL SECURITY or any other person or authority to execute a programme of compulsory digital surveillance of all motor vehicles, motor cycles and other vessels in Uganda pending the disposal of the main suit. b) The costs of the application be provided for. 1

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Limited v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 532 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 13 (7 February 2023)

Case Law

Country

Uganda

Country Location

Latitude: 1.5257584863641895

Longitude: 32.381670917978084

Country Location (linked Case Law): Uganda

Decision Date: Feb 7, 2023

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Denied

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction, Order, or Motion Denied/Vacated

Keywords

Surveillance

Court Name: The High Court of Uganda

Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 532 OF 2021

Case Summary: Facts: Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Ltd filed an application for a temporary injunction to prevent the Government of Uganda from implementing a compulsory digital surveillance program on all motor vehicles, motorcycles, and other vessels. This program was to be executed by the Russian company Joint Stock Company Global Security. LBT argued that the program violated privacy rights, lacked public consultation, and did not follow proper procurement procedures.

Issue: Whether the Applicant has satisfied the conditions for the grant of a temporary injunction.

Rule: The principles for granting a temporary injunction were laid down in the case of Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Katende (1986) HCB 43, citing Giella v Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] 1 EA 358. The conditions are:

A prima facie case with a probability of success. The applicant might suffer irreparable injury not adequately compensated by damages. If in doubt, the balance of convenience favors the applicant. Analysis: Prima Facie Case:

The Court noted that the dispute in the main suit involved balancing national security interests against fundamental human rights. It was unlikely that the Court would completely prohibit the government from implementing any monitoring system. Instead, the Court might provide directions to ensure that the system does not unreasonably interfere with human rights. Irreparable Injury:

The Applicant did not demonstrate that irreparable injury would occur if the ITMS was implemented before the main suit was resolved. The Court believed that any limitations imposed by the ITMS could be reviewed and addressed during the trial. Balance of Convenience:

Since the Applicant did not establish a prima facie case or potential for irreparable injury, the balance of convenience was not considered. The Court found that the dispute could be investigated, and appropriate remedies granted regardless of whether the ITMS was implemented before the main suit was resolved. Conclusion: The application for a temporary injunction was dismissed as the Applicant failed to establish the necessity for such an order. The Court found no prima facie case, no potential for irreparable injury, and no need to preserve the status quo.

Case Significance: This case highlights the judicial balancing act between national security measures and the protection of fundamental human rights. It underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures and the need for government transparency and accountability, particularly in matters involving privacy and surveillance.

Related Law

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA, 1995.

Source URL: ulii.org

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: Jul 22, 2024

Primary Documents

Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Limited v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No 532 of 2021) 2023 UGHCCD 13 (7 February 2023).pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Limited v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 532 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 13 (7 February 2023)

Primary Documents

Notifications