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.

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

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

  • Uganda
  • May 28, 2019
  • The Constitutional Court

Parties

Plaintiff BAT Uganda Ltd.

Defendant

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

Cited Legislation

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

Type of Tobacco Product