[18] For the above reasons, the case raised by the Applicant cannot be and is not one that is likely to lead to a total prohibition of the planned establishment of an ITMS system. In view of my finding in the immediately foregoing paragraph, if that was the intention of the Applicant in bringing the main cause, then I would find that no prima facie has been established by the Applicant with a possibility of success. On the other hand, if the case by the Applicant is for avoidance of any unreasonable limitation on the fundamental human rights and freedoms of persons in Uganda, then I would find a serious case that requires investigation by the Court. However, such would not be a case that requires issuance of an order of a temporary injunction before the issues in the main cause can be investigated. In my view, whether an injunction issues or not would not diminish the need to investigate whether the limitations occasioned by the ITMS are reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. In the event that the Court finds the limitation offensive to the law, the Court would be in position to declare the system or such parts of it as offensive to the named rights and freedoms and the Court will then give appropriate remedies. [19] In the circumstances, the Applicant has not established that it is imperative that the Court issues an order of a temporary injunction if their dispute is to be justly investigated. The dispute can be investigated and appropriate remedies granted whether the ITMS is implemented before disposal of the main cause or not. As such, no need for preservation of the status quo has been established. Similarly, the Applicant has not established a prima facie case that warrants the grant of an order of a temporary injunction pending the hearing of the main cause. Thirdly, no irreparable injury can be established in those circumstances. It also becomes unnecessary to dwell on the ground of balance of convenience. 9