BAT Uganda Ltd. v. Attorney General of Uganda

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).

  • Uganda
  • Mar 26, 2019
  • The East African Court of Justice at Arusha
Download Document

Parties

Plaintiff British American Tobacco Uganda Ltd.

Defendant Attorney General of Uganda

Legislation Cited

Excise Duty (Amendment) Act of 2017

International/Regional Instruments Cited

Related Documents

Type of Litigation

Tobacco Control Topics

Substantive Issues

None

Type of Tobacco Product

None

"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."