An individual who smoked since 1985 and subsequently suffered detrimental health effects brought a suit against BAT claiming misrepresentation based on their health warnings on cigarette packs. This ruling addresses BAT’s preliminary attempt to dismiss the claims on the grounds of a statute of limitations violation, failure to state a claim and frivolous litigation. While the court is suspect of the merits of the misrepresentation claim, it holds that none of the grounds for dismissal are appropriate at this preliminary stage and the claimant should have an opportunity to make his case at trial. The motions to dismiss are rejected.
Oribi v. British American Tobacco, Misc. Application No. 0569 and Civil Suit No. 207 of 2000 High Court of Uganda
An individual or organization may seek civil damages against a tobacco company based on the claim that the use of tobacco products causes disease or death. Some of these cases will relate to general tobacco products, while others will relate to specific subcategories of tobacco products--for example, light or low products, menthol or other flavored products. Additionally, there may be cases relating to exposure to secondhand smoke.
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging.
(See FCTC Art. 11)
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.
Any violation of a law designed to ensure fair trade, competition, or the free flow of truthful information in the marketplace. For example, a government may require businesses to disclose detailed information about products—particularly in areas where safety or public health is an issue.
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
A plaintiff’s liability may be limited where she has accepted the risks and consequences of her behavior. The tobacco industry may argue that the dangers of smoking are well known, so liability should be limited.
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 second ground is that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action. It is argued that the claim is grounded on a misrepresentation when in fact there was not [misrepresentation]. It is said what plaint is complaining of having got as a result of smoking respondents products is exactly what he and been warned against. It is trite that a non-disclosure of a part of the truth may make a statement of the residue positively false. In PEEK V. GURMEY (1873) LR. G.H.L LORD CHELMS FORD said: Half truth, will some times amount to a real falsehood". About eleven years later in ARKWRIGHT V. NEW BOLD (1881) 17 Ch.D. 301 JAMES, LJ said. "Every word may be true, but if you leave out something which qualifies if you make a false statement". Active concealment of a fact is equivalent to a positive statement that a fact does not exist. Plaintiff in his plaint states positively that the caution as appears on defendants products is a misrepresentation. I would not give his mouth at this state. Let him prove it at the trial if he
can. The second ground of objection fails."
"Mr. Byenkya with whom Mr. Lwere agrees, says this is a situation warranting the full application of the maxim of law above. Indeed it is plain from the plaint that before reaching the caution on defendants products, plaintiff was not a smoker. He says he was persuaded to smoke by the caution. It appears he is a man of more guts than brains. But does that mean that his plaint is frivolous or vexatious per see?
The maxim of the law is volent non fit injuria and not scient non fit injurua. It means this: "that to which a man consents cannot be considered an injury". In other words. "No act is actionable as a tort at the suit of any person who has expressly or impliedly assented to it". The question is not whether he knew of the danger, but whether infact he agreed to run the risk, in the sense that he exempted the applicants from their duty not to create danger by the products, and agreed that of injury happened the loss should be on him and not on the applicants whose products were cause of his loss. If the danger was so great that it was a foolhardy and unreasonable act to expose himself to it, then he did so at his own costs. I think with respect these are matters for the trial. At this stage it would be presumptions to say that the plaint is frivolous or vexatious. It is true that an order striking out a plaint as being frivolous or vexalous should be made only where it is obvious that the claim or defence is devoid of all merit or cannot possibly succeed. In my opinion the third ground of objection must fail."
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.
An individual who smoked since 1985 and subsequently suffered detrimental health effects brought a suit against BAT claiming misrepresentation based on their health warnings on cigarette packs. This ruling addresses BAT’s preliminary attempt to dismiss the claims on the grounds of a statute of limitations violation, failure to state a claim and frivolous litigation. While the court is suspect of the merits of the misrepresentation claim, it holds that none of the grounds for dismissal are appropriate at this preliminary stage and the claimant should have an opportunity to make his case at trial. The motions to dismiss are rejected.