BAT Uganda Ltd. v. Attorney General & Center for Health, Human Rights and Development

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.

BAT Uganda Ltd v. Attorney General, et al. No. 46 of 2016, Constitutional Court of Uganda (2019).

  • Uganda
  • May 28, 2019
  • The Constitutional Court
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff BAT Uganda Ltd.

Defendant

  • Attorney General
  • Center for Health, Human Rights and Development

Legislation Cited

International/Regional Instruments Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product

"This petition, I have no doubt in mind is part of a global strategy by the Petitioner and others engaged in the same or related trade to undermine legislation in order to expand the boundaries of their trade and increase their profits irrespective of the adverse health risks their products pose to human population. As already set out above, the Petitioner admits that its products when used in accordance with their instructions result into serious adverse health effects to their users and others. They also concede that, the products they manufacture and sale cause death. Legislation such as the TCA [Tobacco Control Act] that seeks to protect the public from the adverse effects of the Petitioner's products cannot be said to be unconstitutional for the reasons I have already set out above. The Constitution firmly protects the rights of its citizens, Parliament by passing the TCA was putting into effect the provisions of the constitution."
"I have no hesitation in finding that, the legislative objective set out in Section 15 of Tobacco Control Act is designed to limit smoking and the impacts of tobacco on life 10 and human health is therefore sufficiently important to warrant the respondent to limit the Petitioner's right to engage in lawfully occupation, trade or business enriched in Article 40 (2) of Constitution."
"The 1st respondent also has a duty to ensure that every citizen enjoys the right to a clean and healthy environment. The right to a clean and healthy environment includes the right to clean air free from tobacco smoke among other air pollutants."
"Since the Petitioner's products when used properly and in accordance with the proposed instructions of the manufacturer kills, it infringes on the right to life as enshrined in Article 22 of the Constitution, which requires the State to protect the 30 right to life. The respondent has a duty to protect the citizen's right to life, which extends to making polices and laws in that regard. The long title and the preamble to the Tobacco Control Act already set out above clearly illustrates the intention of the 1st respondent in its enactment. The right to life cannot be separated from the enjoyment of good health."
"While under Article 40(2) the Petitioner has a constitutional right to practice lawful trade and business, which includes advertising its products packaging and related business practices in order to make its products attractive to its consumers in this case adults on one hand, that right is restricted in as far as it prejudices the rights of others. These others include children, non-smokers, pregnant women and those who may have quit smoking."