Wakilii

Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT) v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 75 OF 2020)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 157 · 2020 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Human rights enforcement application challenging government's handling of food access and availability during COVID-19 lockdown
Decision
Application for declarations regarding government's duty to ensure food access during COVID-19 lockdown dismissed on finding that government had fulfilled constitutional obligations through alternative measures

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

Application dismissed. The court held that the government had not violated constitutional obligations regarding food access during COVID-19. Evidence showed the government issued guidelines for food distribution to vulnerable populations through the Office of the Prime Minister, established district task forces, and used the contingencies fund to purchase relief food. While national food reserves had not been established as contemplated by National Objective XXII, the government had put in place alternative systems including community stores, regional stores, and support for household storage. The absence of food reserves did not constitute a constitutional violation where alternative measures ensured food accessibility and availability.

Outcome

Application for declarations regarding government's duty to ensure food access during COVID-19 lockdown dismissed on finding that government had fulfilled constitutional obligations through alternative measures

Facts

During the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in March-April 2020, the government issued directives restricting movement and closing markets except for food sales. The applicant, a public interest advocacy organisation, challenged the government's failure to issue comprehensive guidance on food access and its omission to establish national food reserves as required by the Constitution. The applicant argued that 87.2% of Ugandans in the informal sector living hand-to-mouth were severely affected, and that 33% were suffering from hunger pre-pandemic with 38% of children malnourished. The government responded that it had appropriated UGX 65 billion for food relief, established guidelines for identifying vulnerable persons, distributed food through the Office of the Prime Minister to hospitals and urban poor in Kampala, Wakiso and other areas, created district COVID-19 task forces, and maintained access to farmlands for subsistence farmers.

Issues

  1. Whether the Respondent's failure and omission to issue guidance on food access and availability for vulnerable people around the whole country during the COVID-19 pandemic is a violation and threat to Articles 20, 45 and 8A of the Constitution
  2. Whether the omission by government to establish food reserves is a violation of the right to food and a violation of its duty to the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy No. XXII, XXIII and Articles 20, 45 and 8A of the constitution

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — National Objectives and Directive Principles — Right to Food — Implied Right within Right to Livelihood
The right to food is not expressly provided for in the Constitution of Uganda but is an implied right under the right to livelihood, which survives in the womb of the right to food as the latter offers means for securing one's survival, and is justiciable by virtue of Articles 8A and 45 which recognise rights and freedoms not expressly provided for by the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — National Objectives and Directive Principles — State Duty to Ensure Food Security
Under National Objective and Directive Principle of State Policy No. XXII, the State is duty bound to take appropriate steps to encourage people to grow and store adequate food, establish national food reserves, and encourage proper nutrition; however, the absence of food reserves does not constitute a violation of constitutional duty where the government has put in place alternative systems such as community stores, regional stores, and contingencies fund mechanisms to ensure food accessibility and availability.
Constitutional Law — National Objectives and Directive Principles — Emergency Response to Natural Disasters
National Objective and Directive Principle of State Policy No. XXIII requires the State to institute effective machinery for dealing with hazards or disasters arising out of natural calamities or situations causing general displacement or serious disruption of normal life; the Public Finance Management Act 2015 sections 26 and 27 establish a contingencies fund as the mechanism for responding to natural disasters including pandemics, with fifteen percent (or more where required) allocated to finance disaster responses.
Constitutional Law — National Objectives and Directive Principles — Justiciability
National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy have gone beyond merely guiding interpretation of the Constitution and may in themselves be justiciable, meaning they can form the basis for enforceable rights and duties.
Human Rights — Right to Food — Core Content: Accessibility, Availability, Adequacy
The right to food as recognised under international instruments to which Uganda is a signatory requires economic and physical accessibility (food must be affordable and physically reachable), availability (food available from production or for sale in markets), and adequacy (food must satisfy dietary needs, be safe for consumption, and culturally acceptable); the State's duty is to ensure these elements are met through appropriate mechanisms.
Administrative Law — Government Guidelines and Regulations — Food Distribution During Emergency
Where a statute such as the Food and Drugs Act section 41 empowers the minister to make regulations, the existence of operational guidelines by the implementing agency (such as criteria for identifying vulnerable persons and distribution schedules prepared by the Office of the Prime Minister) together with existing regulations under the Act constitute sufficient guidance for emergency food distribution, even absent new specific regulations for the emergency.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (4)

  • Attorney General v Salvatori Abuki (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998)
  • Hon. Okupa Ellijah & 2020 Others v Attorney General & Ors (Miscellaneous Cause No. 14 of 2005)
  • Olga Tellis & Ors -Vs- Bombay Municipal Council [1985] 2; SCR No. 51. (Supreme Court of India)
  • Amooti Godfrey Nyakaana v NEMA and 6 Others (Constitutional Appeal No. 05 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT) v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 75 OF 2020) [2020] UGHCCD 157 (4 June 2020)
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.