In this case the existence of the applicant’s trademark is not in dispute. It is not even challenged. There are issues as to whether third parties not being the applicant can also transit Supermatch cigarettes through Uganda to Southern Sudan. As it is the said third parties especially Mastermind are not parties to this application and this question still therefore remains in the balance. There is evidence that Mastermind has been prohibited from importing Supermatch into Southern Sudan. This too is not denied. To my mind this points to the applicants having a good prima facie case. As to irreparable injury in the case of Britannia Allied Industries Vs Sunrise Confectionaries Ltd MA 0288 OF 2005 I held that for such cases of intellectual property violations it may not be easy to properly assess the level of irreparable loss and therefore determine whether damages may suffice. Loss may arise not only form loss of sales but also good will. In this case the respondent has not been clear on the issue of smuggling because it states that it has been contained and yet in their letter dated 12th August 2011 (marked R7 to the affidavit in reply) they write to Mastermind that Supermatch cigarettes are the most smuggled cigarettes from Southern Sudan into Uganda. Smuggling can to my mind lead to loss that is not easy to quantify. As to the balance of convenience in the event of doubt I can only refer to the authors of Halsbury’s Laws of England 4th Edition; Volume 24 Paragraph: 938, where it is written that; “…The court’s Jurisdiction in the protection given to trade marks rests upon property, and the court interferes by injunction because that is the only mode by which property of this kind can be efficiently protected.”