LANGUAGE

Find decisions that have...

(E.g., Keywords, citations, decision titles, or parties)
Or Or

... but don't show pages that have:

Search Criteria:

from:to:
 

Search Results Results 1-19 of 19

British American Tobacco Kenya, PLC v. Ministry of Health [Kenya] [November 26, 2019]

British American Tobacco Kenya filed a petition to the Kenya Supreme Court appealing a 2017 Court of Appeal decision upholding nearly all elements of Kenya’s Tobacco Control Regulations. The Supreme Court ruled that the tobacco company’s appeal had no merit, dismissed the petition in its entirety and affirmed the decision of the lower court.

Both lower courts upheld nearly all elements of the Regulations, which are designed to implement the Tobacco Control Act, including:

- a 2% annual contribution by the tobacco industry to help fund tobacco control education, research, and cessation;
- picture health warnings;
- ingredient disclosure;
- smoke-free environments in streets, walkways, verandas adjacent to public places and in private vehicles where children are present;
- disclosure of annual tobacco sales and other industry disclosures; and
- regulations limiting interaction between the tobacco industry and public health officials.

BAT Uganda Ltd v. Attorney General & Center for Health, Human Rights and Development [Uganda] [May 28, 2019]

British American Tobacco Uganda (BATU), a subsidiary of British American Tobacco, filed a lawsuit in the Constitutional Court of Uganda in 2016 challenging the constitutionality of several key provisions in the Tobacco Control Act, 2015. The Court dismissed the Petition in its entirety and awarded costs to the government. The Court found that the Petition appeared to have been misconceived or brought in bad faith as part of a global strategy to fight tobacco control legislation. The challenged provisions upheld by the Court include provisions:

- requiring 65% or larger picture health warnings;
- banning smoking in all indoor public places and workplaces, on all means of public transport, and in specified outdoor public places;
- banning all tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship, including product displays at points of sale;
- prohibiting the sale of tobacco products in specified places (health institutions, schools, prisons, and other places);
- prohibiting the import, manufacture, distribution, and sale of electronic nicotine delivery systems, and shisha, smokeless, and flavored tobacco;
- banning the sale of tobacco products through vending machines and through remote means of sale (e.g., mail, internet); and
- implementing WHO FCTC Article 5.3.

British American Tobacco Ltd v. Ministry of Health [Kenya] [February 17, 2017]

British American Tobacco (Kenya) appealed a 2016 court decision, which upheld nearly all elements of Kenya’s Tobacco Control Regulations. The appeals court ruled that the tobacco company’s appeal had no merit and affirmed the decision of the lower court. The earlier ruling upheld nearly all elements of the Regulations, which are designed to implement the Tobacco Control Act, including:

- a 2% annual contribution by the tobacco industry to help fund tobacco control education, research, and cessation;
- picture health warnings;
- ingredient disclosure;
- smoke-free environments in streets, walkways, verandas adjacent to public places and in private vehicles where children are present;
- disclosure of annual tobacco sales and other industry disclosures; and
- regulations limiting interaction between the tobacco industry and public health officials.

The appeals court agreed with the lower court that the tobacco company had been given adequate opportunities for participation in the development of the regulations and that the regulations do not violate the tobacco company’s constitutional rights. 

British American Tobacco Kenya Ltd. v. Ministry of Health [Kenya] [March 24, 2016]

British American Tobacco (Kenya) filed a lawsuit claiming that Kenya’s Tobacco Control Regulations are unconstitutional. The court ruled against the tobacco company, finding that the process of developing the regulations was lawful and conducted with sufficient participation by the tobacco industry. The court upheld nearly all elements of the Regulations, which are designed to implement the Tobacco Control Act, including:

- a 2% annual contribution by the tobacco industry to help fund tobacco control education, research, and cessation;
- picture health warnings;
- ingredient disclosure;
- smoke-free environments in streets, walkways, verandas adjacent to public places;
- disclosure of annual tobacco sales and other industry disclosures; and
- regulations limiting interaction between the tobacco industry and public health officials.

The court specifically noted that the Tobacco Control Act and Regulations are intended to comply with the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Additionally, the court acknowledged the harm caused by tobacco products and stated it would make its decision within the context of a public health system balanced against the commercial rights of the tobacco company.

The court struck down a few minor elements of the regulations, ruling that (1) the tobacco industry is not required to provide evidence of its market share to the government; and (2) that penalties for violation cannot exceed the maximums authorized by law.

The court ruled that the regulations should take effect six months after the date of the decision. 

British American Tobacco South Africa (PTY) Limited v. Minister of Health, et al. [South Africa] [August 06, 2012]

British American Tobacco South Africa Limited (BAT) sued the Minister of Health and others claiming that the Tobacco Products Control Act was unconstitutional.  BAT claimed that the Act, which prohibits the advertising or promotion of tobacco products, violated their freedom of expression by denying them the ability to communicate one-to-one with adult consumers and violating the right of consumers to receive information concerning tobacco products.  BAT lost at the trial court and appealed.  To determine if the limitation on speech was justified, the Appeals Court balanced the right of smokers to receive information concerning tobacco products against the government’s obligation to take steps to protect its citizens from the dangers of tobacco.  The Court found that the hazards of smoking far outweigh the interests of the smokers as a group, so the limitation was justified.  Further, the Court stated that South Africa is a Party to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and is obliged to have regard for the requirements of that treaty, specifically Article 13, which requires that Parties ban all tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship. For these reasons, the lower court’s decision was affirmed. 

BAT appealed to the Constitutional Court.  The Court dismissed the appeal because the company had no prospects of success.

British American Tobacco South Africa (PTY) Ltd. v. Minister of Health, et al. [South Africa] [June 20, 2012]

British American Tobacco South Africa Limited (BAT) sued the Minister of Health and others claiming that the Tobacco Products Control Act was unconstitutional.  BAT claimed that the Act, which prohibits the advertising or promotion of tobacco products, violated their freedom of expression by denying them the ability to communicate one-to-one with adult consumers and violating the right of consumers to receive information concerning tobacco products.  BAT lost at the trial court and appealed.  To determine if the limitation on speech was justified, the Appeals Court balanced the right of smokers to receive information concerning tobacco products against the government’s obligation to take steps to protect its citizens from the dangers of tobacco.  The Court found that the hazards of smoking far outweigh the interests of the smokers as a group, so the limitation was justified.  Further, the Court stated that South Africa is a Party to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and is obliged to have regard for the requirements of that treaty, specifically Article 13, which requires that Parties ban all tobacco advertising, promotion, and sponsorship. For these reasons, the lower court’s decision was affirmed. 

British American Tobacco South Africa (PYT) LTD v. Minister of Health [South Africa] [May 19, 2011]

The applicant, a tobacco company manufacturer, argued that the tobacco control law's provision prohibiting the advertisement or promotion of tobacco products through any direct or indirect means did not apply to one-to-one communications with consenting adult tobacco users or, in the alternative, is unconstitutional. Emphasizing that one of the purposes of the law is to encourage existing smokers to stop smoking, the High Court held that the law must be interpreted as prohibiting one-to-one communication. The Court also upheld the constitutionality of the law, reasoning that limiting the right to freedom to receive or import information to consenting adult tobacco consumers is reasonable and justifiable.

ASA Ruling on K. Williams & Others v. British American Tobacco [South Africa] [May 16, 2011]

Based on several consumer complaints, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) evaluated a series of billboard, press, and radio ads from British American Tobacco (BAT) South Africa that warned of the dangers of buying illegal cigarettes. For example, one ad showed a woman being hijacked with the words “Danger: people who buy illegal cigarettes possibly help hijackers and robbers.” The ASA found that the ads had violated the country’s Code of Advertising Practice because (1) they were misleading (based on an unproven linkage between illegal cigarettes and violent crime) and (2) they were likely to cause unjustified fear and distress to viewers. The ASA ordered BAT to withdraw the advertising campaign and not to use the ads in the current form again. The ASA dismissed the complaint that the advertising was offensive and said it did not have the authority to rule on the legality of the ads. Instead complaints about illegal tobacco advertising should be made to the agency responsible for enforcing the Tobacco Products Control Act.

M. Meerapfel Sohne AG v. Central African Republic [Central African Republic] [May 12, 2011]

Information about this decision coming soon. 

Savanna Tobacco Company (PTY) Ltd. v. Minister of Finance, et al. [South Africa] [August 16, 2005]

A cigarette company sought an order from the High Court for the release of cigarettes that were detained after South African officials suspected the cigarettes were being smuggled into the country. The company contended that the cigarettes were manufactured in Zimbabwe and were in transit through South Africa. The High Court dismissed the application and determined the activity was an attempt to smuggle the cigarettes into the country since, among other reasons, the detained cigarettes bore the marks that clearly prove the cigarettes were destined for South Africa.

The Environmental Action Network Ltd. (TEAN) v. British American Tobacco Ltd. [Uganda] [April 16, 2003]

The Environmental Action Network Ltd (TEAN) sued British American Tobacco Limited (BAT), claiming that BAT failed to warn consumers of the danger of its tobacco products, violating consumers' right to life. TEAN requested that the Court order BAT to provide sufficient information on health risks to consumers in advertisements and on packets. The Court held that the claim of failure to warn was too remote to establish a causation between tobacco products and harm to consumers' lives. Due to lack of expertise, the Court could not fully and sufficiently decide which kind of information should be included in labels and publications.

Eryau v. The Environmental Action Network Ltd. (TEAN) [Uganda] [June 19, 2002]

A smoker seeks to be heard in a separate court case brought by TEAN, a civil society organization, against the Attorney General of Uganda and the National Environmental Management Authority to create and enforce a ban on smoking in public places.  The applicant claims to be a former tobacco industry employee who smokes and was concerned about the respondent's request for enforcement of criminal penalties for smoking in public places.  The court said the criminal aspects of the respondent’s case were dismissed so that could no longer be a ground for the current application.  The court also took judicial notice of the fact that smoking and especially second-hand smoke is dangerous to public health.  The court dismissed the applicant as an “obstructionist” and refused his application to be heard in the respondent’s case seeking a ban on smoking in public places.

Eryau v. The Environmental Action Network Ltd. (TEAN) [Uganda] [September 20, 2001]

The Environmental Action Network (TEAN) brought an action against the Attorney General of Uganda and the National Environmental Management Authority to create and enforce a ban on smoking in public places.  In this decision, the court ruled on whether a smoker may join that case.   The smoker, a former tobacco industry employee, was concerned about the request for enforcement of criminal penalties for smoking in public places.  In this ruling TEAN requested to cross examine the smoker because his application was submitted by affidavit.  The court rules that it would serve the interests of justice to have the applicant examined in court and orders him to appear at a later date for the purpose of cross examination.

The Environmental Action Network Ltd. (TEAN) v. The Attorney General & National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) [Uganda] [August 28, 2001]

On behalf of itself and non-smoking people, the Environmental Action Network (TEAN) sued the government seeking protections from smoking in public places. TEAN contended such measures were required for the general good of public health in Uganda and to enforce the right to a clean and healthy environment and the right to life. The Government maintained that 1) it did not have enough time for investigation after the case was filed and 2) the application was based on hearsay -- the applicant company is not an expert on the effects of secondary cigarette smoke and the applicant could not claim to represent the Ugandan public. The court overruled the objections stating that 1) when people's rights are infringed, the government is responsible for investigation before the actual damage is done; 2) scientific reports are sufficient to prove the harm of cigarette smoke; and 3) the representative does not need to have the same interests as the represented group if claim is for the public interest. The application was allowed to be heard.

Oribi v. British American Tobacco [Uganda] [November 24, 2000]

An individual who smoked since 1985 and subsequently suffered detrimental health effects brought a suit against BAT claiming misrepresentation based on their health warnings on cigarette packs.  This ruling addresses BAT’s preliminary attempt to dismiss the claims on the grounds of a statute of limitations violation, failure to state a claim and frivolous litigation.  While the court is suspect of the merits of the misrepresentation claim, it holds that none of the grounds for dismissal are appropriate at this preliminary stage and the claimant should have an opportunity to make his case at trial.  The motions to dismiss are rejected.

Okumu v. B.A.T. & Mastermind Tobacco Ltd. [Uganda] [November 24, 2000]

Thomas Okumu sued British American Tobacco (BAT) and Mastermind Tobacco Ltd, claiming that the defective nature of their cigarettes caused him to develop lung cancer.

This order discusses procedural matters related to the case as well as whether the case is a representative action or a public interest suit.  (Okumu contended that the case is a public interest suit.)  The Court ruled that (1) the case is a representative action because, among other reasons, it was filed as a class action, but that (2) the suit is barred by law.  Accordingly, the Court did not reach other procedural issues.

L'Association SOS Tabagisme v. La Firme CRAVEN A [Mali] [April 13, 2000]

A public interest group, SOS Tabagisme, sued a tobacco company, Craven A, for violating the law regulating tobacco advertising by erecting a large billboard on a main street and by distributing free t-shirts and cigarettes. Craven A alleged that SOS Tabagisme did not have standing to enforce the fine, arguing that only the government can enforce the legislation and collect any associated fine. In addition, Craven A argued that, as an official sponsor of la Coupe d'Afrique des Nations 2000, its billboard came within an exception that allowed tobacco companies to advertise at certain events where they were the official sponsor. The Court agreed to hear the action and ruled against Craven A as the advertisement was not associated with the soccer tournament, which, in any case, did not take place in Mali.

Musa v. TEBA, et al. [Lesotho] [February 02, 1990]

The applicant, a receptionist at a mining company, suffered from an allergy to tobacco smoke and sought a transfer to another position within the company. The company granted the applicant the transfer, but the new position required that she accept a change in salary grade that would disqualify her from receiving annual incremental pay raises. The applicant asserted that, in effect, the company had limited her options to accepting the lower pay grade, returning to the smoke-filled office where she had previously worked, or resigning from the company. While the company negotiated the applicant's position, she ceased to perform her duties, and the company terminated her employment on those grounds. The applicant claimed she was wrongfully dismissed and requested a declaration that the dismissal was null and void and that the company had to reinstate her with full rights and benefits. The High Court dismissed the application on technical grounds.