Wakilii

Center For Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) and Others v Uganda National Health Research Organization (UNHRO) and Others (Miscellaneous Application 439 of 2019)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 288 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application under Article 50(2) of the Constitution seeking declarations of human rights violations and injunctive relief
Decision
Application dismissed on procedural grounds for defective affidavits; substantive constitutional claims not determined

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 on procedural grounds, striking out the applicants' supporting affidavits for containing inadmissible hearsay evidence and statements not within the deponents' personal knowledge. The court found that after expunging the offending paragraphs which contained medical and factual assertions without source, the remaining paragraphs could not support the application. The court did not reach the substantive constitutional issues raised. Costs were awarded to the respondents.

Outcome

Application dismissed on procedural grounds for defective affidavits; substantive constitutional claims not determined

Facts

The applicants, three health rights advocacy organizations, challenged a clinical trial known as the Children's Oxygen Administration Strategies Trial (COAST) which was conducted on children aged 28 days to 12 years with hypoxia at multiple hospitals. The trial was approved by the respondents in 2016 and started in 2017, sponsored by Imperial College London. The applicants alleged that during the trial, study participants were randomly assigned to different oxygen delivery strategies including permissive hypoxia and low flow oxygen below recommended standards, that several children died, that appropriate care was not provided for life-threatening diagnoses beyond hypoxia, and that the trial proceeded without proper regulatory approval. The trial was halted in 2018 following concerns raised by a committee of intensivists but was later restarted. The applicants sought declarations that the trial violated constitutional rights to health and life, and a permanent injunction stopping the trial.

Issues

  1. Whether the approval and clearance of the COAST protocol by the 1st and 2nd Respondents without ascertaining that it caters for the care needed for critically ill patients is a violation of the right to health and a threat to the right to life.
  2. Whether the clearance, approval and conduct of the COAST by the Respondents without adherence to responsibilities of health professionals on care and treatment of study participants is a violation of their obligation to respect and protect the rights of children, the right to dignity, freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and a threat to the right to life.
  3. Whether failure of the 3rd Respondent to obtain a certificate of approval from National Drug Authority prior to conducting the COAST study is a violation of the right to health and a threat to the right to life.
  4. Who is responsible for approval of clinical trials in Uganda.
  5. Whether the Applicants are entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • Preliminary objection that the matter is moot overruled.
  • Offending paragraphs in the affidavits in support of the application struck out for containing hearsay and statements not within the deponents' personal knowledge.
  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Personal Knowledge — Hearsay — Order 19 Rule 3(1) CPR
An affidavit must be confined to facts within the deponent's own knowledge except on interlocutory applications where statements of belief may be admitted provided grounds are stated. Where an affidavit contains both personal knowledge and hearsay, only averments containing personal knowledge will be considered and offensive averments must be expunged.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Technical Matters — Competence of Deponent
Where an affidavit makes assertions on technical medical matters and the deponent lacks medical qualifications, demonstrable knowledge of the medical issues, or fails to provide the source of their knowledge, such assertions are inadmissible hearsay and must be struck out.
Civil Procedure — Mootness — Practical Significance of Relief Sought
A matter is deemed moot when it no longer has practical significance, is hypothetical or academic, or where the decision will not have the effect of resolving the controversy affecting the parties. However, where a study has been halted or suspended but not permanently stopped by court order, an application for a permanent injunction is not moot.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (7)

  • Kwesiga William and Others v Ssenyonga Haruna and 7 Others (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2021)
  • Julius Maganda v National Resistance Movement (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 154 of 2010)
  • Patricia Asero Ochieng & 2 Ors. -v- Attorney General, High Court of Kenya Petition No. 409 of 2019 (2012) eKLR
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2018)
  • Attorney General and Another v Human Rights Awareness and Promotion Forum (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 482 of 2020)
  • Retired Colonel Dr Kizza Besigye v Electoral Commission and Another (Presidential Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Wambugu -v- Public Service Commission 1972 (E.A.) 296

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Center For Health, Human Rights and Development (CEHURD) and Others v Uganda National Health Research Organization (UNHRO) and Others (Miscellaneous Application 439 of 2019) [2023] UGHCCD 288 (29 Sept
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.