shown that there were triable issues on either side.” Also in the recent case of Kikungwe Issa and Ors —Vs- Standard Bank Investment Corporation and Ors Misc. Appl. No. … /2004 Arising from CS 409/2004 (per Kiryabwire J.). I agree with this approach and I have adopted it in this application, because it gives better guidance for the exercise of the Courts discretion. Secondly, such 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 the application on the balance of convenience. See: Kiyimba — Kaggwa —Vs- Haji Nasser Katende [1985) HCB 43. - Giella —Vs- Cassman Brown and Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358. - Robert Kavuma —Vs- Hotel International Ltd CA No. 8/90. Applying the above conditions to the instant application this is what I have come up with. Regarding the first issue, the case for the Plaintiff is contained in the plaint filed in this Court dated 21/5/2004 where the Plaintiff averred as follows: That the three of them are duly incorporated companies, carrying on business in Uganda. At all times, it has been carrying on a well established business of manufacturing and marketing of steel wool and metal fibre know as “NGARISHA”. It has been using the trade name „NGARISHA‟ since 1986 in relation to the said products at all material times, and the said trade mark has been widely advertised through all known media and the general public, throughout Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Congo and other countries as its trade mark. For that reason, the said name has become known in trade and to the general public as signifying the Plaintiff‟s steel wool and metal fibre and the Plaintiff has acquired a substantial reputation in the and by the use of the said trade mark. 7