The Environmental Action Network Ltd. (TEAN) v. Attorney General & National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)
On behalf of itself and non-smoking people, The Environmental Action Network (TEAN) sued the government seeking protections from smoking in public places. TEAN contended such measures were required for the general good of public health in Uganda and to enforce the right to a clean and healthy environment and the right to life. The Government maintained that 1) it did not have enough time for investigation after the case was filed and 2) the application was based on hearsay -- the applicant company is not an expert on the effects of secondary cigarette smoke and the applicant could not claim to represent the Ugandan public. The court overruled the objections stating that 1) when people's rights are infringed, the government is responsible for investigation before the actual damage is done; 2) scientific reports are sufficient to prove the harm of cigarette smoke; and 3) the representative does not need to have the same interests as the represented group if claim is for the public interest. The application was allowed to be heard.
The Environmental Action Network LTD. (TEAN) vs. Attorney General & National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), Misc. Applic. No. 39, High Court of Uganda at Kampala (2001).
An individual or organization may sue their own government in order to advance or protect the public interest. For example, an NGO may sue the government claiming the government’s weak tobacco control laws violated their constitutional right to health.
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.
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.
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.
"Secondly, Tanzanians are massively poor. Our ranking in the World on the basis of per capita income has persistently been the source of embarrassment. Public interest litigation is a sophisticated mechanism which requires professional handling. By reason of limited resources that the vast majority of our people cannot afford to engage lawyers even where they are aware of the infringement of their rights and the perversion of the Constitution. Other factors could be listed out but perhaps the most painful of all is that over the years since Independence Tanzanians have developed a culture of apathy and silence. This, in large measure is a product of institutionalized mono-party politics which, in its repressive dimension, like detention without trial supped up initiative and guts, the people found contentment in being receivers without being seekers. Our leaders very well recognize this, and the emergence of transparency in governance they have not hesitated to affirm it. When the National Assembly was debating Hon. J. S. Warioba’s private motion on the desirability of a referendum before some features of the Constitution were tampered with, Hon. Sukwa said Sukwa, after the interruptions by his colleagues, continued and said ----- “ Given all these and other circumstances., if there should spring up a public-spirited individual and seek the Court’s intervention against legislation or actions that pervert the Constitution, the Court, as guardian and trustee of the Constitution and what it stands for, is under an obligation to rise-up to the occasion and grant him standing”. My understanding of Lugakingira J’s lengthy statement is that the interest of public rights and freedoms transcend technicalities, especially as to the rules of procedure leading to the protection of such rights and freedoms. This is also the message in Lord Diplock’s words cited above in [1901] 2 ALL E.R. 93 at p. 107. If I may revert to Miscellaneous Application No. 39 of 2001, the applicant say they are especially interested in the infringement of the rights and freedoms of the poor, and children – those who cannot know and appreciate their rights and freedoms and who do not know where to go and how to go there for redress. It is not compelling that a body like the applicant stands up for them and fights for their cause. I think the applicant deserves hearing and I will hear it."
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.
On behalf of itself and non-smoking people, The Environmental Action Network (TEAN) sued the government seeking protections from smoking in public places. TEAN contended such measures were required for the general good of public health in Uganda and to enforce the right to a clean and healthy environment and the right to life. The Government maintained that 1) it did not have enough time for investigation after the case was filed and 2) the application was based on hearsay -- the applicant company is not an expert on the effects of secondary cigarette smoke and the applicant could not claim to represent the Ugandan public. The court overruled the objections stating that 1) when people's rights are infringed, the government is responsible for investigation before the actual damage is done; 2) scientific reports are sufficient to prove the harm of cigarette smoke; and 3) the representative does not need to have the same interests as the represented group if claim is for the public interest. The application was allowed to be heard.