Wakilii

Advocates For People (AFP) and Another v National Drug Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 209 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 65 · 2023 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking certiorari and prohibition orders concerning National Drug Authority's approval of Covidex drug
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed for lack of standing and improper remedy

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

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 High Court dismissed the application for judicial review on two independent grounds: first, the applicants lacked locus standi, being neither directly affected nor having sufficient interest to challenge the National Drug Authority's approval of Covidex; second, the proper remedy for a dispute over intellectual property rights in Covidex was not judicial review but private law proceedings. The court held that Rule 3A of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019 requires direct or sufficient interest, and the applicants, an unverified public interest group and a journalist with no demonstrable connection to the matter, were mere busybodies seeking publicity litigation.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed for lack of standing and improper remedy

Facts

Advocates For People (AFP), a purported public interest group, and Musa Muhammad Kigongo, a journalist, sought judicial review of the National Drug Authority's decision to approve Covidex, a herbal drug for Covid-19 management, for production by Jena Herbals Uganda Ltd. The applicants alleged the approval was unlawful because Jena Herbals did not hold the patent, which belonged to Mbarara University of Science and Technology. The dispute arose after press statements in June 2021 concerning the drug's approval. Dr Ogwang Patrick, founder of Jena Herbals and an employee of Mbarara University, claimed ownership. Mbarara University Council later confirmed in September 2021 that Jena Herbals held the copyright and that Covidex originated from Jena Herbals before any university research grant. The applicants had not demonstrated any personal interest affected by the approval.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is competently before the court?
  2. Whether the 1st respondent properly granted permission to the 2nd respondent to produce, sell and distribute Covidex drug?
  3. What remedies are available?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Locus Standi — Direct or Sufficient Interest — Rule 3A Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019
An applicant seeking judicial review must demonstrate direct or sufficient interest in the matter under Rule 3A of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019, and the court is duty bound to determine locus standi to prevent abuse by busybodies and mischief-makers; the standard of sufficient interest requires an objectively defined interest beyond mere concern with legality of governmental action, and a citizen's concern with legality alone is insufficient without pointing to a right or factual interest.
Judicial Review — Public Interest Standing — Representative Standing — Requirements
Where a claimant purports to bring judicial review in the public interest, the court must assess whether the claimant has a track record of concern and activity in the area under challenge, whether there is a justiciable issue of real public significance, whether the applicant has genuine interest, and whether the setting is reasonable and effective for litigation; mere status as a public interest pressure group is insufficient without demonstrating alignment between stated core objectives and the matter challenged.
Judicial Review — Scope — Private Rights Distinguished from Public Law Remedies
Judicial review is not the appropriate remedy for disputes concerning private rights such as intellectual property ownership; such claims should be pursued through ordinary civil proceedings under the available legal regime rather than by way of judicial review of an administrative decision.
Administrative Law — Scope of Regulatory Authority — National Drug Authority — Mandate Distinguished from Patent Rights
The statutory mandate of the National Drug Authority to control importation, exportation, sale and quality of pharmaceuticals and to promote local production does not extend to determining intellectual property rights or patent ownership; such disputes lie outside the authority's regulatory remit.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (2)

  • R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd [1982] AC 617
  • Community Justice and Anti-Corruption Forum v Law Council & Sebalu and Lule Advocates (Miscellaneous Cause No. 338 of 2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Advocates For People (AFP) and Another v National Drug Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 209 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 65 (17 March 2023)
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.