Microsoft Word - Casebook on Environmental law

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA

MISC. APLLICATION No. 444 OF 2001

(Arising out of Misc. Appl. No. 39 of 2001)

B.A.T. (U) LTD.....................................................................APPLICANT
-VERSUS –
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK LTD...................RESPONDENT

BEFORE: - HON. THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE – MR. JUSTICE J.H. NTABGOBA

RULING.
This is a ruling on the application filed and argued on behalf of the British American Tobacco
Uganda Ltd.
The application brought pursuant to Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 5 and 7 of
the Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure) Rules S.I No. 26 of 1992 as
well as Order 48 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeks order that: -

• the applicant be added respondent to Miscellaneous Application No. 39 of 2001, and


• the costs of the application be provided for.

The grounds relied on by the applicant are as follows: -

• That the respondent has filed Miscellaneous Application No. 39 of 2001 under Article
  50(1) and (2) of the Constitution seeking for declarations that smoking in Public Places is
  a violation of the rights of non-smoking members of the Public and that smoking in
  Public constitutes and offence.


• That the applicant was not made a party to the said application.


• That the orders sought by the respondent in the said application will be necessary in order
  for the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions
  involved in the application.

The BAT application was supported by the affidavit of one Richard Wejuli-Wabwire who
deponed that he is an advocate of this Court and the Company Secretary of the applicant
Company. His affidavit deponed to the 4 grounds enumerated above and to nothing else in
addition.

In reply Mr. Phillip Karugaba who claims to be one of the applicant’s members deponed that: -

• The application No. 39 of 2001 seeks only to protect non-smoking members of the public
  especially vulnerable groups like women, children and workers in hospitality industry
  from the proven dangers of second hand smoke and passive smoking;


• The focus of the main application is to control only the place of consumption of Tobacco
  Products and is not targeted against B.A.T, the applicant, its manufacturing, distribution
  or retail processes nor against its particular Customers;


• it is far-fetched to believe that if the respondent is successful in application NO. 39 of
  2001, B.A.T, the applicant will suffer gross financial consequences or at all;


• the two respondents in application No. 39 of 2001 do not contest the science on dangers
  of second hand smoke and are according to their affidavits in reply already working on
  measures to address the problem;


• there is nothing in the affidavit of the applicant to suggest that it contests the scientific
  basis on which the respondent seeks it relief.