"In the application No. 70 of 2002, the applicant (TEAN) alleges failure of the respondent (British American Tobacco Uganda Limited - BATUL) to adequately inform the smokers of their product i.e. tobacco of the dangers of smoking. In fact the application is brought by TEAN as a public interest litigator bringing the action on behalf of consumers and potential consumers of the cigarettes manufactured by BATU, the respondent. The question is whether TEAN’S action was appropriately brought under Article 50(2) of the Constitution or whether it is not a proper action in tort, which should have been brought, or negligence. I now come to the import of the first question, which challenges the validity of bringing Application No.70 of 2002 under Articles 22(1) and 50(2) of the Constitution. That the application should allege, (specially plead, with particulars) the intention to deprive the life of the litigant is central to the question. Failure to make full disclosure of the dangers or risks of smoking cigarettes to the consumers of the cigarettes seems to be too remote to taking away of the life of such consumers. It seems to me that failure to disclose such dangers may have alternative intentions, such as not to demote the business of selling cigarettes; to attribute intention to kill such failure would call for strict, if not impossible proof. I think that Application No.70 of 2003 should be a tortious action. I would also hold that to the extent that it alleges failure to disclose information about the dangers of smoking and remoteness of such failure to the taking away of the life of the litigants as well as failure to specially plead the intention to take away such life, I do strike the application out as showing no cause of action."