British American Tobacco Uganda (BATU) filed a case challenging the Excise Duty (Amendment) Act of 2017. The Court’s 5 Judges Bench found that Uganda imposed a differential excise tax on cigarettes manufactured in Kenya and imported to Uganda. The court held that this is a violation of the East Africa Community Treaty, Customs Union and Common Market protocols to which Uganda is a party. The East Africa Court of Justice has ruled that imposition of a differential excise tax on cigarettes was illegal.
BAT v. Attorney General of Uganda, Reference No. 7 of 2017, East African Court of Justice First Instance Division (Uganda 2019).
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.
Tax or price measures, including tax- and duty-free regulation.
(See FCTC Art. 6)
Substantive Issues
None
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"Finally and in summation, We did adjudge the URA's misconstruction of the impugned law to run counter to the definition of 'imports' and 'foreign country' in Article 1 and 1 (1) of the Treaty and Customs Union Protocol respectively, constitute a violation of Article 2(2) and 5(2) of the Treaty and thus negate the objectives and purpose of the Treaty. In the same measure, having determined the implementation of section 2 of the impugned Act to contravene Article 75(6) of the Treaty, and Article 15(1 )(a) and (2) of the Customs Union Protocol; section 2 is indeed in violation of both the Treaty and international law (the Protocol being an international instrument), is to that extent unlawful and does thereby constitute an infringement of Article 30(1} of the Treaty. Quite clearly, the implementation of a law that is in violation of the highlighted Community Law amounts to the imposition of an illegal barricade to the realization of the Customs Union as advanced under Article 2(2) and 5(2) of the Treaty. Such an eventuality would be an absolute negation of the objectives of the Treaty."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
British American Tobacco Uganda (BATU) filed a case challenging the Excise Duty (Amendment) Act of 2017. The Court’s 5 Judges Bench found that Uganda imposed a differential excise tax on cigarettes manufactured in Kenya and imported to Uganda. The court held that this is a violation of the East Africa Community Treaty, Customs Union and Common Market protocols to which Uganda is a party. The East Africa Court of Justice has ruled that imposition of a differential excise tax on cigarettes was illegal.