[6] The Applicant filed an affidavit in rejoinder whose contents I have also taken into consideration. Representation and Hearing [7] At the hearing, the Applicant was represented by Mr. Stanley Oketcho while the Respondent was represented by Mr. Martin Mwambustya and Mr. Atwine Geofrey. The parties agreed that the hearing proceeds by way of written submissions which were duly filed by both counsel and have been considered while determining this matter. Issues for Determination by the Court [8] One issue is up for determination by the Court namely; Whether the Applicant has satisfied the conditions for grant of an order of a temporary injunction? Submissions by Counsel for the Applicant [9] Counsel for the Applicant relied on the case of Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Katende (1986) HCB 43 for the position of law on the conditions for grant of an order of a temporary injunction, namely, that there is a status quo that needs to be preserved; there is a prima facie case with a probability of success; the applicant is likely to suffer irreparable damage which would not be adequately compensated in damages; and in case the court is in doubt, the balance of convenience lies with the applicant. On the need to preserve the status quo, it was submitted by Counsel for the Applicant that there is a status quo to be preserved on the basis that the Respondent’s novel Intelligent Transport Monitoring System (ITMS) is not prescribed by law, that the financial model has not been approved, the Russian company is yet to be registered with the National Information Technology Authority Uganda (NITA-U) as well as the Uganda Registration Services Bureau. Counsel further stated that there is no statutory instrument and road map for rolling out the ITMS, no vehicles or 4