Sebunya & Ors v Attorney General & Ors (Miscellaneous Application 296 of 2001) [2001] UGHC 14 (22 June 2001)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f201\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f202\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f204\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f205\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f206\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f207\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f208\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f209\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\trcbpat1\trcfpat1\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid11157285 Normal (Web);}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1660006\rsid3425551\rsid4095373\rsid4681579\rsid6443057\rsid7669903\rsid8082259\rsid9201158\rsid9395404\rsid9710445\rsid11157285\rsid12911510\rsid13371085\rsid13437723}{\*\generator Microsoft Wo rd 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA }{\author DELL}{\operator DELL}{\creatim\yr2009\mo11\dy9\hr9\min58}{\revtim\yr2009\mo11\dy9\hr12\min31}{\version8}{\edmins133}{\nofpages9}{\nofwords2600}{\nofchars14821}{\nofcharsws17387}{\vern24689}} \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot11157285\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}} {\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (} {\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13371085 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\fs26\ul\insrsid13371085\charrsid9201158 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

\par }{\b\fs26\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA}{\b\fs26\insrsid13371085\charrsid9201158 \par }{\b\fs26\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 MISCELL}{\b\fs26\insrsid13371085\charrsid9201158 ANEOUS APPLICATION 296 OF 2001 \par }{\b\fs26\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 ARISING OUT OF HCCS 476 OF }{\b\fs26\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 1995}{\i\fs26\insrsid13371085\charrsid9201158 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13371085 {\b\fs26\insrsid13371085\charrsid9201158 SEBUNYA LUL}{\b\fs26\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 E }{ \b\fs26\insrsid9201158 \par }{\b\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 MARIA}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\b\fs26\insrsid13371085\charrsid9201158 KAGUSUURU\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85}{\b\fs26\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 APPLICANTS \line MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED \line SECRETARIE}{\b\fs26\insrsid13371085\charrsid9201158 S AND ADMINISTRATORS OF UGANDA \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13371085 {\b\fs26\insrsid13371085\charrsid9201158 VERSUS \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13371085 {\b\fs26\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL \line THE INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC \line ACCOUNTANTS OF UGANDA}{\fs34\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 \} }{\fs34\insrsid13371085\charrsid9201158 \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85\'85}{\b\fs26\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 RESPONDENTS \line }{\b\fs26\insrsid13371085\charrsid9201158 GEORGE EGADU \line BEN OKELLO LUWUM \par }{\b\fs26\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 BEFORE: THE HON. JUSTICE LUGAYIZI }{\b\fs26\ul\insrsid13371085\charrsid9201158 \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid7669903 {\b\fs26\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 RULING}{\b\fs26\insrsid13371085\charrsid9201158 \par }\pard \s15\qj \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13371085 {\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 This ruling arose out of an application for a temporary injunction, which was made by the applicants by way of Chamber Summons under Order 37 rules 2 and, }{\fs26\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 9}{\b\fs26\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{ \insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 of the CPR. The application was accompanied by two affidavits, which were sworn by Mr. Simon Peter Kalenzi. It sought orders to restrain the}{\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 2}{\super\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 nd, }{\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 3}{\super\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 rd}{\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 and}{\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 4}{\super\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 th}{ \fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondents from holding an Annual General Meeting of the 2 respondent until final determination of the head suit and costs. When the respondents were served with the application, the 4th}{\fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent swore an affidavit opposing it. However}{\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 , before court goes into the substance of the application, it is useful to know its background which is briefly as follows. Whereas accordingly, the Statute of 1992 (statut}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 e No. }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 12}{\i\fs26\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 of 1992) was enacted it, among other things, established an Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda. It further provided for the requisition and control of accountants and also paved the way for the applicants to }{ \insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 enroll}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 as members of that Institute so that they may }{\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 practice}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 accountancy lawfully in Uganda. That state of affairs was, however, short lived. In 1994 the Minister of Finance, under Statutory Instrument No. }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 258 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 of 1994, amended the Fifth Schedule to the Accountants Statute by deleting the Minister of Finance, under Statutory Instrument No. 258 of 1994, amended the Fifth Schedule to the Accountants Statute by deleting the Association of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators of Uganda from the list of institutes whose members qualified to }{\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 enroll}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 and to }{\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 practice}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 accountancy in Uganda lawfully. That aggrieved the applicants. They therefore filed the head suit. Later on, Government conceded that Statutory Instrument No. 258 of 1994 was invalid; and therefore Government had no choice but to revoke it. It did }{ \insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 so, by way of Statutory Instrument No.47 of }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 1999. }{\fs8\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 . }{\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 Following }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 tha}{ \insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 t event,}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 Court entered judgment in favour of the applicants in respect of the first issue of the head suit, which was whether or not Statutory Instrument No.258 of 1994 was valid? However, that did not end the head suit. There was another hot issue that remained unresolved. It was whether the Council of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Uganda was lawfully constituted? Subsequently, Court he ard a number of witnesses in respect of that issue, but }{\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 before it exhausted them, the 2}{\super\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 ,}{\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 3}{ \super\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 rd}{\b\fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 and }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 4}{\super\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 th}{\insrsid13437723\charrsid9201158 }{ \b\fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondents organised to hold an Annual General Meeting of the }{\b\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 2nd}{\b\fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{ \insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent on June 2001. The applicants fearing that the above respondents could make policy decisions that may prejudice their interests during that meeting applied for an ex pane interim order to restrain them from holding the Annual General Meeting of the 2}{\super\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 respondent on 1}{\super\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 st}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 June 2001. Court granted that order and the said meeting did not take place. However, the applicants presently continue to fear that the }{\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 2}{\super\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 , 3}{ \super\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 rd}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 and }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 4}{\super\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 th}{\fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{ \insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 resp}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 ondents will once again }{\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 organize}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 an Annual General Meeting of the 2}{\super\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 nd}{ \insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent . The main reason for that fear is that they are not sure whether their interests will not be jeopardised during that meeting where they will not be represented. They did not wish to leave matters to chance. That is why they made the application, which is }{\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 the subject of this ruling. \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 At the time of hearing the application, Messrs G. S. Lule (S. C.) and Sebugenyi represented the applicants; and Professor Sempebwa represented the }{\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 2}{ \super\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 , 3}{\super\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 rd}{\b\fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 and }{\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 4}{ \super\insrsid8082259\charrsid9201158 th}{\b\fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondents. Although both sides were agreed on the principles go verning the grant of a temporary injunction, they were not of the same mind on whether or not the application should be granted. }{\insrsid9395404\charrsid9201158 \par It is now settled law that before an applicant is granted a temporary }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 injunction, he has }{\insrsid9395404\charrsid9201158 to prove the following things, \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 1. That the purpose of the temporary injunction is to pres}{\insrsid9201158 erve the \line S}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 tatus quo until the head suit is finally determined. }{\b\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 (See }{\b\ul\insrsid9395404\charrsid9201158 Noor }{\b\ul\insrsid9201158 Mohammed }{\b\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 Janmohamed v Kassamali Virji (1953) 20 }{\b\fs26\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 EACA 80.) }{ \b\fs26\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 2. That the applicant has a}{\insrsid9201158 prima facie case, which has a }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 probability of }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 success.}{\b\fs26\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 (See }{ \b\fs26\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 Giella v Cassman Brown & Co}{\fs26\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 . }{\b\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 Ltd }{\b\ul\insrsid6443057\charrsid9201158 (1973) }{\b\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 E. A. 358) }{\b\insrsid6443057\charrsid9201158 \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 3. That if the temporary injunction}{\insrsid9201158 is not granted, the applicant }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 would suffer irreparable inj}{\insrsid9201158 ury, which cannot be atoned by }{ \insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 damages. }{\b\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 (See }{\b\ul\insrsid6443057\charrsid9201158 Noor Mohammed Janmoham}{\b\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 ed}{\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{ \b\fs26\ul\insrsid6443057\charrsid9201158 v Kassamali Virji (supra).}{\b\fs26\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\b\fs26\insrsid6443057\charrsid9201158 \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 4.}{\b\fs26\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 If, Court remains in doubt after consid}{\insrsid9201158 ering the above three }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 requirements of the law, it }{\insrsid9201158 decides the application on the }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 balance of convenience. (See}{\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 }{\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 E. A. Industries }{ \b\fs26\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 v Traffords }{\b\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 (1972) E. A. 420.)}{\ul\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 Court will now consider the above requirements of the law in turn, in relation to the evidence before it and the submissions of counsel. \line With regard to the first requirement, Mr. Lule submitted that the status quo is that Statutory Instrument No. }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 258 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 of 1994 that had earlier on denied the applicants professional recognition under the Accountants Statute and the right to }{\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 practice}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 as accountants was revoked by }{ \insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 Statutory}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 Instrument No. 47 of 1999. Consequently, the applicants are \lquote now entitled to }{\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 practice}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 accountancy as members of the Institute (ICPAU). In addition to that, Court entered judgment in the applicant\rquote s favour in the head suit in respect of whether or not Statutory Instrument No 258 is illegal. However, the 2}{ \super\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 , }{\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 3}{\super\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 rd}{\b\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 and}{ \insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 4}{\super\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 th}{\fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondents have refused to accept the above state of things. In fact, they are likely to try to hold an Annual General Meeting, any time, during which matters of policy affecting the applicants\rquote interests could be resolved in their absence with a view to changing the status quo. That is why the applicants need a tempora}{\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 ry injunction to restrain the 2}{\super\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 nd}{ \insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 , 3}{\super\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 rd}{\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 and}{\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 4}{\super\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 th}{ \fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondents from holding an Annual General Meeting until}{\insrsid4095373\charrsid9201158 the head suit is disposed of. \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 On the contrary, Professor Sempebwa submitted that the status quo is that the 2}{\super\insrsid9710445\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent is in existence and the 3}{ \super\insrsid9710445\charrsid9201158 rd}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 and}{\insrsid9710445\charrsid9201158 4}{\super\insrsid9710445\charrsid9201158 th}{\fs18\insrsid9710445\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondents are \line } {\insrsid9710445\charrsid9201158 its council members who have been transacting its statutory business }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 which includes holdin}{\insrsid9710445\charrsid9201158 g}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 Annual Ge}{ \insrsid9710445\charrsid9201158 neral Meetings. He further subm}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 itted that the }{\fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 3rd }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 and 4 respondents have not done anything that might raise suspicion that if they held an Annual General Meeting, they might decide on matters that are likely to }{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 jeopardize}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 the applicants \rquote interests under the Accountants Statute. Professor Sempebwa finally submitted that the truth of the matter is that the applicants are not presently seeking relief to maintain the status quo. They are simply trying to obtain one of the final pray ers under the plaint prematurely. He pointed out that the}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 law }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 does not permit the granting of a temporary injunction if its purpose is simply a disguised way of enabling the applicant to obtain the final prayers under the head suit. He cited the case of }{\b\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 Noor}{ \ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\b\fs26\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 Mohamed Jan }{\b\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 Mohamed}{\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\b\fs26\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 v Kassarnali Virji Madhani }{ \ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 (supra) }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 in support of that submission. He therefore pointed out that on that ground alone the appl}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 ication would completely fail. \par In }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 Court\rquote s}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 opinion the, status quo is made up }{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 o}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 f}{ \insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 a}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 combination of }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 facts found}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 in submissions of counsel}{ \fs36\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 for both }{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 s}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 ides and more. Those facts are as follows. It is an undisputed fact that Statutory Instrument No. 47 of 1999 revoked the earlier Instrument that barred the applicants from }{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 practicing}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 accountancy under the Accountants Statute. As a result, the applicants are now free to }{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 practice}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 accountancy under the said Statute. It is also a fact that there is presently, a}{ \insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 judgment under the head suit, w}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 hich is in the applicants\rquote favour. That judgment is to the effect that Statutory Inst rument No. 258 of 1994, which had earlier on barred the applicants from }{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 practicing}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 accountancy under the Accountants Statute, is illegal. That asid}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 e, it is also a fact that the 3}{\super\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 rd}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 and 4}{\super\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 th}{\i\fs20\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondents are of}{ \insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 ficials of the Council of the 2}{\super\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent and ha ve been carrying out its statutory functions that include organising its meetings. It is a fact too, that the applicants are still challenging, under the h}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 ead suit, the legality of the 3}{ \super\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 rd}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 and 4}{\super\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 th}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 respondents\rquote }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 appointment to the Council of the 2}{ \super\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent; and that part of the head suit remains unresolved. In Court\rquote s opinion, that is the status quo. The vexed question now is whether or not the application, which is the subject of this ruling is for the purpose of maintaining the status quo until the head suit}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 is disposed }{ \insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 of. Indeed, the }{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 applicants}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 have shown that they are seeking to restrain the}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 2}{\super\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 nd }{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 , 3}{\super\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 rd}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 and 4}{\super\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 th}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondents from holding an Annual General Meeting until the head suit is disposed of. However, it is a fact that the members of the Council of the 2nd respondent have over time transacted business such as the holding of Annual General Meetings. Indeed, as earlier on pointed out, such matters are part and parcel of the status quo. For that reason, it follows that when the applicants seek to restrain the 2}{\super\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 , 3}{\super\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 rd}{\fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 and 4}{\super\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 th}{ \fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondents from holding an Annual General Meeting, they are endeavouring to change the status quo. Consequently, the purpose of the temporary injunction cannot be to maintain the status quo. In Court\rquote s view, that should dispose of this matt}{ \insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 er. However in o}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 rder to }{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 put to rest every aspect of contention in this matter, court will also examine the rest of the legal requirements. \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 With regard to the second requirement, Mr. Lule submitted that the sum total of the evidence that the applicants led under Mr. Kalenzi\rquote s two affidav its clearly shows that the applicants have a prima facie case, under the head suit, which has a probability of success. Professor Sempebwa disagreed with that position. He submitted that the applicants led, absolutely, no evidence in respect of that area of the application. }{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 As Court earlier on pointed out, the remainder of the head suit is about whether the 3}{\super\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 rd}{\fs18\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 and 4}{ \super\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 th}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondents were lawfully constituted as members of the Council of the }{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 2}{ \super\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent. However, Court thinks that it would be almost in terfering with the merits of the head suit if Court was to decide on whether the applicants have a prima facie case with the probability of success. All the same, the truth of the matter is that the applicants did not lead any evidence on that aspect of t h}{\insrsid9201158 e }{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 application}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 . Consequently; the}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 y failed to prove the second requirement. \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 With regard to the third requirement,}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 Mr. Lule submitted that the 2}{\super\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 , }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 3}{ \super\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 rd}{\fs18\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 and 4}{\super\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 th}{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondents should be restrained from holding an Annual General Meeting. He pointed out that if that is not done, they are likely to continue to refuse to }{\insrsid3425551\charrsid9201158 recognize}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 the applicants as full members of the 2nd respondent. That means that the applicants would have no voting rights at the Annual General Meeting and cannot influence any policy of the }{\fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 2nd }{ \insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 responden t or, hold any position on the Council of the 2 respondent. For those reasons, Mr. Lule submitted that if a temporary injunction is not granted to the applicants they would suffer irreparable injury in their various accountancy practices, which damages ca n not atone. On the contrary, Professor Sempebwa submitted that an Annual General Meeting of the 2 respondent is a statutory requirement; and the agenda showing the business that is expected to be transacted during that meeting is very clear. It is the usua l business and does not }{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 include}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 anything that would injure the applicants\rquote present interests in their }{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 practice}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 of accountancy. He further pointed out that although the applicants have not yet applied for membership of the 2\rquote respondent, Mr. Ben Luwum, in his affidavit, has deposed that they are }{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 practicing}{ \insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 accountancy; and none of the officials of the Council of the }{\fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 2nd }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent has molested them at any given time. F}{ \insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 or those reasons, Professor Sem}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 pebwa concluded that the applicants have not proved that they will suffer irreparable injury, which damages cannot atone if the temporary inju}{ \insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 nction is not granted to them. \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 First of all, before endeavouring to decide whether or not the applicants proved that they would suffer irreparable injury, which damages cannot atone if the temporary injunction is not gra}{ \insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 nted. Court wishes to say this. At the commencement of the accountants statute \'93full membership\'94 to }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 the}{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 2}{\super\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 nd} {\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent was }{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 available}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 on application to the Interim Council, by a member of any of the institutes, which were then, specified in the Fifth Schedule to the Accountants Statute. However, that was not supposed to be a permanent state of affairs. It was a transitional measure. It was meant to be effective only from the commencement of the said Statute unti}{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 l the time the Council of the 2}{\super\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent prescribed \'93the qualifying examination and the societies equivalent to the Institute\'94 . There is evidence on record to prove that the 2}{\super\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent and the }{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 members of the Council of the 2}{ \super\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent have been transacting official business that included the holding of a number of Annual General Meetings. It is therefore very unlik}{ \insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 ely that the affairs of the 2}{\super\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent are still where they started in 1992 and have not gone beyond the transitional stage. For that reason, it is not far-fetched to c onclude that presently sections 6 and 7 govern membership of the 2nd respondent (fill or associate) and not section 51 of the Accountants Statute as the applicants would wish Court to bel}{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 ieve, Therefore, Court doubts w hether is correct to say}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 that when }{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 the Assoc}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 iation of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators of Uganda was restored to the Fifth Schedule to the Statute by Statutory Instrument No.47 of 1999, its members simply retu}{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 rned to their original status. \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 Be that as it may, the uncontested agenda of the business to be transacted by the anticipated A}{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 nnual General Meeting of the 2}{\super\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 nd}{ \insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 respondent is as follows, \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 1. To receive and adopt the}{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 Report of the Council and the }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 Financial Statements for th}{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 e year ended 31 December 2000.

\par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 2. }{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 To}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 elect seven members of }{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 Council. \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 3. To re-appoint as auditor, Mr. Muhaise-Bikalemesa John, Certified Public Accountant of Uganda}{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 . \par }{\b\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 SPECIAL BUSINESS \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 4. To transact any other}{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 business competently tabled.\'94 \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 In Court\rquote s opinion, the agenda is clearly about the usual business that is ordinarily transacted during such Annual General Meetings. It would be unreasonable to say that if that agenda is followed in the anticipated Annual General Meeting, it will result in irreparable injury to the applicants, which damages cannot atone. In f act, that would be sheer speculation or reading into the agenda what does not appear on its face. This is particularly so, when one realises tha}{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 t the applicants have been freely practicing}{ \insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 accountant}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 and }{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 the respondent have not attempted to }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{ \insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 stop the}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 m }{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 from doing so since the applicants filed the head suit. For}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 those reasons, Court is of the opinion that the applicants failed to prove that if they are not granted a temporary injunction to stop the anticipated Annual General Meeting, they will suffer irreparable injur}{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 y, which damages cannot atone. \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 That takes us to the last requirement. With regard to it, Mr. Lule submitted that the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting a temporary injunction to the applicants. That is so, because the }{ \insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 3}{\super\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 rd}{\fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 and }{\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 4}{\super\insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 th}{ \insrsid4681579\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondents are illegally working as }{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 members of the Council of the 2}{\super\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent and whatever they officially do, simply perpetuates illegalities. That process of illegalities must be stopped by the grant of a temporary injunction to the applicants. On the con trary, Professor Sempebwa submitted that the balance of convenience lies in favour of refusing to grant a temporary injunction to the applicants because if Court did otherwise, it would throw the 2 respond}{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 ent and the entire profession o}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 f }{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 accountants in a}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 st}{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 ate }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 o}{ \insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 f disarray. For example, the 2}{\super\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent\rquote s financial state would remain unknown, there would be no policy for the profession to follow for the coming year and other business, such as setting examinations for students, which the Council for the }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 2}{ \super\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 nd}{\b\fs18\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent routinely engag}{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 es in will not be attended to. \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 Whether or not the 3}{\super\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 rd}{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 and }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 4}{\super\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 th}{ \b\fs18\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondents lawfully hold office as }{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 members of the Council of the 2}{\super\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 }{ \insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent is a matter that is yet to be tried. Therefore, Court cannot reach any conclusions, one way or the other, on that matter now. However, Court entirely agrees with P}{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 rofessor Sempebwa that if the 2}{\super\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 , }{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 3}{\super\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 rd}{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 }{ \insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 and }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 4}{\super\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 th}{\b\fs18\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondents are restrained from holding an Annual General Meeting of the}{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 2}{\super\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 nd}{\fs14\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent, the consequences of such action }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 will}{\b\fs18\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 be catastrophic to the }{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 2}{ \super\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent and the entire profession as a whole. Indeed, some of the vital activities of the }{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 2}{ \super\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 nd}{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 respondent would cease and its finances would be in jeopardy. Of course, these would be very negative developments in the affairs of the prof ession. Such things should not be allowed to happen. In the circu}{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 mstances, Court is of the opinio}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 n that the balance of convenience lies in favour of not granting the temporary injunction, which is hereby refused. In any case, an Annual General Meeting of the 2\rquote respondent is a matter of law}{\b\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 . (See; }{ \b\ul\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 item 1}{\b\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 (1) of the First Schedule }{\b\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 to the }{\b\ul\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 Accountants Statute.)}{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 It must be held, otherwise there}{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 would be a breach of the law. \par }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 A}{\insrsid1660006\charrsid9201158 ll in all, the application has }{\insrsid9201158\charrsid9201158 failed; and it is hereby dismissed with }{\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 costs. \par }\pard\plain \qj \li6480\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin6480\itap0\pararsid9201158 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid9201158\charrsid9201158 E. S. LUGAYIZI}{ \b\insrsid11157285\charrsid9201158 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li5760\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5760\itap0\pararsid9201158 {\b\insrsid9201158\charrsid9201158 JUDGE \par 22/06/2001 \par }}