Wakilii

CISE Dispensers (u) Ltd v Executive Secretary, National Drug Authority

Supreme Court · [2010] UGSC 18 · 2010 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal from a High Court decision dismissing an application for judicial review (certiorari, mandamus, permanent injunction and declarations).
Decision
Appeal dismissed; the High Court's dismissal of the judicial review application upheld.

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Allied Health Professionals Act and the National Drug Policy and Authority Act complement rather than conflict with each other: subjection to one does not exclude the other, and a later Act does not impliedly repeal or amend an earlier one where they address wholly different mischiefs. The National Drug Authority therefore acted within its statutory mandate under section 51 of Cap 206 when it inspected the unlicensed premises and seized restricted drugs classified under section 12. The drugs found were restricted within the Act's schedules, and the trial judge did not err by declining to spell out the disposal procedure, which the enforcement officers are presumed to know.

Facts

The appellant operated an Allied Professional Health Unit in Rubaga Division, Kampala. On 25 July 2008 officials of the respondent, accompanied by police, entered, inspected and searched the appellant's premises and impounded drugs found there, on the basis that the premises were unlicensed. The impounded drugs were taken to CID Headquarters at Kibuli and the appellant's manager was arrested. The appellant ceased operating the Health Unit. The appellant, holding that its dispenser was a licensed diploma holder regulated by the Allied Health Professionals Council, applied to the High Court for certiorari, mandamus, a permanent injunction and declarations against the respondent, arguing the National Drug Authority had no power to inspect its premises. An expert report classified the seized drugs as including 122 Schedule 2 Class B Group 1 controlled drugs, 47 Schedule 2 Class B II drugs and 68 Schedule 3 Class C drugs. The High Court dismissed the application, leading to this appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the Allied Health Professionals Act (Cap 268) and the National Drug Policy and Authority Act (Cap 206) complement each other, or whether the later Act impliedly amended, varied or repealed the earlier one.
  2. Whether the National Drug Authority had statutory authority to enter, inspect and seize drugs on the appellant's premises.
  3. Whether some of the drugs found on the appellant's premises were restricted drugs within the meaning of the National Drug Policy and Authority Act.
  4. Whether the trial judge erred by ordering that the impounded drugs be dealt with in accordance with the law without specifying the applicable provisions.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondent, here and below.

Key headnotes

Statutory Interpretation — Implied Repeal — Acts Addressing Different Mischiefs
The provisions of a later Act do not impliedly amend, vary or repeal those of an earlier Act where the two enactments legislate upon wholly different things or address distinct mischiefs.
Statutory Interpretation — Complementary Statutes — Concurrent Regulatory Regimes
Where two statutes each cover a separate facet of the same policy, they complement each other, and subjection of a person to one Act does not exclude subjection to the provisions of the other.
Administrative Law — Statutory Powers — Inspection and Seizure by the National Drug Authority
The National Drug Authority is mandated under section 51 of the National Drug Policy and Authority Act to investigate, enter and inspect premises and to seize and take away any drug or records found there, and acts within its proper statutory mandate when it does so in respect of unlicensed premises.
Statutory Interpretation — Restricted Drugs — Classification under the Schedules
Drugs specified in the first, second and third Schedules to the National Drug Policy and Authority Act are classified or restricted drugs under section 12, and only pharmacists, dentists, veterinary surgeons or licensed persons may dispense or supply them under sections 13 to 15.
Administrative Law — Disposal of Impounded Goods — Duty to Specify Enforcement Procedure
Disposal of impounded restricted drugs is governed by section 51(2) of the National Drug Policy and Authority Act, and it is not normally necessary for a court to spell out the details of enforcement which the enforcement officers are presumed to know.

Legislation cited (19)

  • National Drug Policy and Authority Act (Cap 206) s.5
  • National Drug Policy and Authority Act (Cap 206) s.8
  • National Drug Policy and Authority Act (Cap 206) s.12
  • National Drug Policy and Authority Act (Cap 206) s.13
  • National Drug Policy and Authority Act (Cap 206) s.14
  • National Drug Policy and Authority Act (Cap 206) s.15
  • National Drug Policy and Authority Act (Cap 206) s.15(2)
  • National Drug Policy and Authority Act (Cap 206) s.16
  • National Drug Policy and Authority Act (Cap 206) s.17
  • National Drug Policy and Authority Act (Cap 206) s.51
  • National Drug Policy and Authority Act (Cap 206) s.51(2)
  • National Drug Policy and Authority Act (Cap 206) s.60
  • Allied Health Professionals Act (Cap 268) s.2
  • Allied Health Professionals Act (Cap 268) s.4
  • Allied Health Professionals Act (Cap 268) s.21
  • Allied Health Professionals Act (Cap 268) s.29(a)
  • Allied Health Professionals Act (Cap 268) s.35
  • Allied Health Professionals Act (Cap 268) s.48
  • Allied Health Professionals Act (Cap 268) s.56

Cases cited (2)

  • David Sejjaaka Nalima v Rebecca Musoke (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 1985)
  • CRB 933 of 2008 Uganda v Moses Kakungulu at Buganda Road Chief Magistrate's Court
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.