Eryau v. The Environmental Action Network Ltd. (TEAN)
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 Civil Application No. 39 of 2001, High Court at Kampala
The tobacco industry may attack an individual or organization in court. For example, a tobacco company may sue a tobacco control advocacy organization for defamation. Another example is a suit in which a tobacco company sought burdensome document production from a University under a freedom of information claim.
A violation of the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. Public health advocates may claim the public’s right to health is violated by weak tobacco control measures, industry tactics, or an organization’s or smokers’ actions.
A discussion on whether the regulations impose an undue burden on the tobacco industry. This argument may involve the costs of implementing regulatory measures.
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.
"The applicant says that he does not believe that smoking is dangerous to health and life and therefore a health hazard. He states that he should be left alone to smoke even if it may be injurious to his health. I wish to agree with him that he is free to smoke and destroy his health as he says. However, he cannot be heard t be saying that his smoking is not injurious to unsuspecting, unknowing and innocent non-smokers. He himself agrees that he cannot smoke in any public places indiscriminately because, he says, it is uncomfortable for non-smokers. He shies away from using the expression dangerous to non-smokers. I find that Mr. Eryau is either a hiring obstructionist or a person far removed from international concerns about the dangers of cigarette smoking. The former is more likely to be the correct assessment of what he is, as I do not think that a person of his education who was a B.A.T. Quality Controller would not know that cigarette smoking is hazardous to the life of both the direct smoker like him but more so to the passive smoker. He needs to have attended to the address to the nation of Hon. Beatrice Wabudeya, Minister of State for Primary Health on 30/05/2002, the eve of the International campaign against smoking. He would have learnt that four and half million people die every year of tobacco-smoking related diseases. Cigarette smoking kills, and that is why smoking of cigarettes in the public places needs to be regulated. That is the crucial issue and not whether or not cigarette smoking is dangerous to life. In the result I have decided that Mr. Joseph Eryau is merely an obstructionist who has nothing useful to offer to this Court if he were allowed to be heard. I dismiss his application."
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.
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.