The court considered whether to grant the
application or not. The court held that the
applicant must prove that had suffered
irreparable damage not payable in monetary
terms or no balance of convenience. The court
found that respondent has not engaged in the
business much longer than the applicant. The
court further found that the application was
based on private interest and the business is
constitutionally protected as a right to be
enjoyed by every person as part of freedom of
speech. The court was not satisfied that the
applicant could not be compensated as they
both operated on different places.
Accordingly court dismissed the application
with costs.