Uganda Case Law

Petnum Pharmacy Limited v National Drug Authority

Petnum Pharmacy Limited v National Drug Authority (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.56 OF 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 104 (31 October 2018)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.56 OF 2018

Judge

Musa Ssekaana, J

The court found that the National Drug Authority Licensing Guidelines, 2017 and 2018 were made by the Secretariat and not by the Authority or Minister as required by the National Drug Policy and Authority Act. There was no evidence of proper delegation of the power to make such guidelines. The guidelines imposed distance requirements for pharmacy locations not provided for in the parent Act or regulations, making them ultra vires. Consequently, all decisions made by the respondent based on these guidelines, including the refusal to issue a certificate of suitability of premises to the applica…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Review
• Ultra Vires
• Licensing Of Pharmacies
• Subsidiary Legislation
• Misfeasance In Public Office

Malinda and Another v The Queen

Malinda and Another v The Queen (Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1956; Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1956) [1956] EACA 18 (1 January 1956)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 143 of 1956 ; Criminal Appeal No. 144 of 1956

Judge

Edmonds J, O'Connor CJ

The court held that, following the repeal of section 8 of the Animal Diseases (Amendment) Ordinance, 1950, and in light of the definition of 'Ordinance' in the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, a breach of rule 21 of the Animal Diseases Rules is an offence against the Animal Diseases Ordinance for purposes of section 21, which permits forfeiture of animals. The penalty provision in rule 67 does not exclude forfeiture, and the absence of express inconsistency or exclusion means the forfeiture power applies. The court also clarified that where a penalty is provided by the Rules for…

Source excerpt

• Statutory Interpretation
• Subsidiary Legislation
• Forfeiture Of Property
• Animal Disease Control
• Penalty Provisions

Mbiu v Rex

Mbiu v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 1951) [1951] EACA 130 (1 January 1951)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 406 of 1951

Judge

Bourke J, Hearne CJ

The court held that Rule 3(1) of the African-grown Coffee Rules, 1949, was ultra vires section 4 of the Crop Production and Livestock Ordinance (Cap. 205) because the enabling section did not authorize the Governor in Council to make rules that imposed restrictions based on race or class. The rule unlawfully restricted Africans from growing coffee outside certain areas, a restriction not imposed on Europeans or Asians, and thus exceeded the statutory powers. The court further found that the procedural irregularity in failing to frame a formal charge did not occasion a failure of justice, as t…

Source excerpt

• Ultra Vires Rulemaking
• Racial Discrimination In Law
• Subsidiary Legislation
• Statutory Interpretation
• Agricultural Regulation

Mahida v Rex

Mahida v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 515 of 1951) [1951] EACA 136 (1 January 1951)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 515 of 1951

Judge

Thacker J, Windham J

The appeal against bread-price convictions was allowed because invoices and the controlled price list were not formally produced as court exhibits.

• Defence Control Of Prices Regulations
• Evidentiary Production
• Judicial Notice
• Subsidiary Legislation
• Controlled Price Lists
• Criminal-procedure

Githigi and Another v Rex

Githigi and Another v Rex (Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 1950 (Case Stated)) [1950] EACA 72 (1 January 1950)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 166 of 1950 (Case Stated)

Judges

Connell, Ag.J, Nihill, C.J

The court quashed convictions for overcharging by holding that an unpublished order could not lawfully vary a gazetted price order.

• Price Control Orders
• Subsidiary Legislation
• Gazette Publication Requirements
• Powers Of Statutory Authorities
• Price-control-orders
• Subsidiary-legislation

Rex v Naser

Rex v Naser (Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1950) [1951] EACA 143 (1 January 1951)

Court

East African Court of Appeal

Case number

Criminal Appeal No. 198 of 1950

Judge

Edwards CJ, Graham Paul CJ, Lockhart-Smith, J

The Court of Appeal held that section 15(b) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance confers power on the Governor in Council to annex penalties to breaches of subsidiary legislation, even in the absence of an omnibus clause in the parent Ordinance. The rules made under the Animal Diseases Ordinance were not inconsistent with the Ordinance, as the Ordinance did not prohibit the annexation of penalties to breaches of rules validly made under its authority. The Supreme Court's interpretation of 'inconsistency' was incorrect; inconsistency requires a direct conflict or prohibition, no…

Source excerpt

• Subsidiary Legislation
• Statutory Interpretation
• Penalties For Breach
• Rule Making Authority