consumer. On the balance of probability, I am of the view that the Applicant stands to suffer more if the injunction is refused than what the Respondent would suffer if it is granted. I therefore agree with Mr. Mugenyi learned counsel for the Applicant that his client stands suffer more if the injunction is refused than what the Respondent would suffer. The technical points of objection raised to the affidavit in support is irrelevant since an affidavit is not a statutory declaration. See: Col. Dr Kiiza Besigye —Vs- Y. K. Museveni & Anor Election Petition No. 1 of 2001. Similarly this case is based on passing off and not trade mark. The objection regarding the certificate attached to the affidavit in support does not in my view prevent this Court from allowing the application prayed for. On that basis and from the reason I, have given, I grant this application and order that the Respondents are restrained from manufacturing, selling or distributing or exposing for sale or dealing in any way in steel wool under the name „NGARISHA‟ forthwith pending the determination of the main suit. Costs of this application shall be in the cause. M.S. Arach - Amoko JUDGE 9/12/2004 Ruling delivered in Court in the presence of: 1. Mr. Mugunga for the Applicant. 2. Mr. Kiryowa Kiwanuka for the Respondent. 3. Mr. Okuni - Court clerk. 4. Mr. Kennedy Ramish Representing the Respondent. 17