National Unity Platform (NUP) principal Robert Kyagulanyi alias Bobi Wine must take back his bullet proof car to Uganda Revenue Authority for reassessment, the High Court ruled on Tuesday.
His application was dismissed by the deputy head of High court civil division judge Emmanuel Baguma. Baguma argues that Kyagulanyi failed to adduce evidence to show that the recalling of the vehicle for re-verification will cause him an irreparable injury which cannot be compensated by an award of damages.
Last month, Kyagulanyi through his lawyers from Wameli and Company Advocates petitioned the High court seeking a temporary injunction restraining URA and its agents from taking his vehicle Land Cruiser V8 registration number UBJ 667F for a re-verification exercise.
The purpose of granting a temporary injunction is to preserve the matters in the status quo until the question to be investigated in the main suit is finally disposed of. The status quo considered by courts is the one prevailing at the time of filing the application.
In the instant application, the applicant’s motor vehicle was assessed, cleared and subsequently registered by URA on 12th January 2021(See annexure ‘A’ to the applicant’s affidavit in support of the application). From this information, it is not in dispute that the purpose of recalling the motor vehicle is strictly for re-verification/re-examination.
At this stage, the Law does not require Court to delve into the merits of the main suit. All that is required to be proved is that there is a serious issue to be tried by Court and that, that issue is neither frivolous nor vexatious.
It should be noted that an injunction will not normally be granted unless the applicant has shown that he will suffer irreparable injury which would not adequately be compensated by an award of damages.
Basing on the submissions by counsel for the applicant, the main worry/concern for sending back the alleged motor vehicle for re-verification/reexamination is that the said motor vehicle is the applicant’s main means of transport and his personal security.
However, the honorable court was not satisfied with such submissions.
It is therefore my considered view that the applicant has not adduced evidence to show that the re-calling of the said motor vehicle for re-verification/reexamination will cause him irreparable injury which cannot be compensated by an award of damages.
