[14] As to whether the Applicant stands to suffer irreparable harm, it was submitted by Counsel for the Respondent that the Applicant has not demonstrated the injury they are likely to suffer if the ITMS is implemented which cannot be atoned for in damages. Counsel argued that to the contrary, it is the Respondent that is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is granted as it would prevent the Respondent from carrying out the necessary procedures to ensure implementation of the ITMS. Counsel also argued that the Respondent has already entered into agreements with the contractor which agreements create legally binding obligations on the Government of Uganda. Halting the implementation is likely to cause serious financial hemorrhage to the Government that the Applicant cannot atone for in form of damages. Counsel concluded that in case of doubt, the balance of convenience tilts heavily in the Respondent’s favour. Determination by the Court [15] The law is that grant of a temporary injunction is an exercise of judicial discretion for purposes of maintaining the status quo until the question(s) to be investigated in the main suit is/are tried on the merits and disposed of finally. The principles for grant of a temporary injunction were well laid down in the case of Kiyimba Kaggwa v Hajji Abdul Nasser Katende (1986) HCB 43 citing with approval the decision in Giella vs. Cassman Brown & Co Ltd [1973] 1 EA 358, as follows: “The conditions for the grant of an interlocutory injunction are …. first, an applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success. Secondly, an interlocutory injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant might otherwise suffer irreparable injury, which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages. Thirdly, if the court is in doubt, it will decide an application on the balance of convenience.” 7