vexatious. 15. That the right to registration and protection of a trade mark is territorial in nature. 16. That the 2nd Respondent is the registered owner of the trade mark and shall on the balance of probability suffer more damage than the Applicant. 17. That.... to grant a temporary injunction in this case would amount to disposing of the suit. 18. That the word “NGARISHA” was not conceived or coined by the Appilcant as alleged suit is a generic Swahili word that means “shining” and the Applicant cannot claim exclusive use to the said word. 19. That at all times the said product has been recognised as being manufactured and marketed by the Respondents vide the trade mark of „NGARISHA‟ throughout the media of publicity to traders and the general public throughout Uganda, and all other areas where it is sold. 20. That the 2nd Respondent has as such created its own good will I the market which the Appilcant now seeks to take unfair advantage of” Mr. Yesse Mugenyi represented the Applicant while Mr. Kiryowa and Mr. Ochaya Thomas appeared for the Respondents. They argued the application based on the affidavits on record. The granting of a temporary injunction is an exercise of Judicial discretion and the purpose of granting the same is to preserve matters in status quo until the questions to be investigated are finally disposed of. The conditions for the grant are first that the Applicant must show a prima facie case with a probability of success. The current thinking based on a wealth of authorities is however, whether there are serious questions to be tried rather than a prima facie case with a probability of success. This observation was made per incuriam by Odoki J. as he then was, in the case of Kiyimba Kagwa (supra) where he stated inter alia thus: 5