By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

opinion, that where the Court used its original inherentjurisdiction, i.e. power of equity, that is outside the ambit ofORDER XXXVII of the Civil Procedure Code, 1996, the preconditionsfor exercising such jurisdiction under the said order, donot strictly apply. It is my submission, however that where a partyseeks a temporary injunction from the Right Court, in itsapplication of its original and inherent satisfy three conditionsnamely -1- the applicant must all the same, have made out, astrong prima facie case, and -2- the balance of convenience mustbe in favour of granting, an order thereunder, and -3- whether it isconsistent with public policy, and or public interest.The onus of proving prima facie case, and balance of convenience,falls on the shoulders of the applicants, they must show theexistence of Constitutional legal problems raised, in the litigation,and that the balance of convenience is in their favour, or that, theinconvenience, or disadvantage likely to be suffered, for exceed thatof their opponents, in the event of refusal, to grant exceed, that oftheir opponents, in the event of refusal, to grant the prayer. Andmay I add that the Court should in its institutional wisdom, bealert, not to be used, as an instrument, or tool, to cause injury, orloss to Society, for the instrument of society, demands of society,must be considered, but justice prevail at the end of the day.How then, do the above apply to the circumstance of thiscase.This application is a by-product, of a Constitutional petition underarticle 13(6), 15, 18, 20(1), 24, 26(2) and 30(4) of the Constitutionof the United Republic and section 4 and (5 of the Basic Rights andDuties Enforcement Act, 1994 questioning the constitutionality ofthe Society Ordinance Cap.337, and the powers exercisablethereunder. This came in the wake of the applicants Society beingcancelled from the Register of the Registrar of Societies. It is withtrepidation and fear, lest I encroach upon a prohibited territory ofjurisdiction, that I observe, that, there is generally, a presumptionin favour of constitutionality, of statute, and a law will not bedeclared unconditional unless the case, is so clear, as to be freeirom doubt. BAWATA, as a society was cancelled and the membersare alleging, a violation of their constitutional rights and thereforeaggrieved. It is constitutionally speaking, that a person whoasserts and give facts that because of the allegedunconstitutionality, his or her interests have been adverselyaffected, or stand in real, or imminent danger of, being affected, by103