Wakilii

Center for Health, Human Rights & Development (CEHURD) v Attorney General & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 30 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCCD 121 · 2024 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Public interest application under article 50 of the Constitution for enforcement of human rights related to access to essential medicines
Decision
Application dismissed after court found respondents' policy measures reasonable and no breach of constitutional obligations established

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 court held that while it has jurisdiction under article 50 to inquire into operational policy decisions affecting constitutional promises on health, the respondents' measures were reasonable. The Minister's parliamentary statement acknowledging medicine shortages and subsequent budgetary enhancements demonstrated proactive steps. The state satisfied its minimum core obligations under the reasonableness standard despite operational glitches. No breach of the constitutional promise to provide basic medical services was established.

Outcome

Application dismissed after court found respondents' policy measures reasonable and no breach of constitutional obligations established

Facts

CEHURD, a non-profit health rights organisation, filed a public interest application alleging that late delivery and distribution of essential medicines by National Medical Stores violated rights to life, health, and human dignity. Evidence showed media reports and parliamentary debates revealing widespread medicine stock-outs at public health facilities. The Minister of Health had acknowledged shortages and explained that recentralisation of medicine procurement funds in 2009/10 through NMS, combined with migration to the Integrated Financial Management System in 2019, caused operational challenges including unpaid fuel, delivery costs, and delayed payment instructions. A community health worker from Buikwe testified to actual shortages forcing patients to buy drugs privately. Respondents admitted operational difficulties but presented evidence of budgetary enhancements and corrective measures taken to address the shortages.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has the power to determine the application under article 50 of the Constitution
  2. Whether the respondents failed to establish and maintain an efficient system for the distribution of essential medicines and health supplies
  3. Whether that omission infringed on the constitutionally guaranteed rights to life and health
  4. Whether any reliefs sought can be granted

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Jurisdiction — Article 50 — Political Question Doctrine
The political question doctrine has limited application in Uganda and only shields the Executive and Parliament from judicial scrutiny where they are properly exercising constitutional mandates without red flags. Courts may inquire into operational policy decisions of the Executive affecting constitutional promises on health, and such jurisdiction extends to the High Court under article 50 when constitutional rights are allegedly violated.
Socio-Economic Rights — Right to Health — Access to Medicines
The right to access essential medicines is an analogous right to life, human dignity, and the right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health. This right can be enforced through article 50 of the Constitution read together with Directive Principle XX requiring the state to take practical measures to provide basic medical services to the population.
Enforcement — Minimum Core Content — Reasonableness Test
In enforcing socio-economic rights such as access to medical services, courts apply a reasonableness test considering whether state measures are necessary, limited by available resources, demonstrate effort to use all resources at the state's disposal, and reflect correct priorities. The test examines whether measures are comprehensive, coherent, inclusive, balanced, properly conceived and implemented, and address those in most urgent need.
Statutory Mandate — Resource Constraints — Breach of Duty
A statutory body's failure to fully perform its mandate due to resource constraints and operational challenges does not constitute a breach of constitutional obligations where the state has taken proactive, targeted, and measurable steps including ministerial engagement with Parliament for budgetary enhancement and implementation of corrective measures.
Public Interest Litigation — Standing — Locus Standi
A non-profit research and advocacy organisation established to achieve social justice in health-related human rights has sufficient interest to bring public interest litigation concerning medicine stock-outs at government health facilities under article 50 of the Constitution and the Human Rights Enforcement Act 2019.

Legislation cited (21)

Cases cited (18)

  • James Omunuk v Attorney General (Civil Suit No. 108 of 2011)
  • Attorney General v Major General David Tinyefuza (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • CEHURD and 3 others v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2013)
  • Minister Health and Others v Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) and Others No. 2 (CCT8/02) [2002] ZACC 15; 2002 (5) SA 721 (CC); 2002 (10) BCLR 1033 (CC) (5 July 2002)
  • Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others (CCT11/00) [2000] ZACC 19; 2001 (1) SA 46; 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (4 October 2000)
  • Legal Brains Trust (LBT) Ltd v Attorney General
  • Unwarranted Witness (U) Ltd v Attorney General and 4 others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 50 of 2021)
  • Cook v Gull (LR 8 E) p 116
  • Marbury v Madison 5 US 137
  • Luther v Border 48 US (7 How.) 1 (1849)
  • Hiabashi v United States 320 US 81 pp 91-92 1943
  • Social and Economic Action Centre and the Centre for Economic and Social Rights v Nigeria (SERAC) Communication 155/96
  • Joseph Borowski v Attorney General of Canada (1989)1 SCR 342 at 353
  • Mwiru Paul v National Council for Higher Education and 2 Others (Court of Appeal No. 84 of 2016)
  • Kalari v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 88 of 2022)
  • President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd and Others [2005] 8 BCLR 786 (CC)
  • Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers [2004] 12 BCLR 1268 (CC)
  • Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and Others [2009] 9 BCLR 847 (CC)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Center for Health, Human Rights & Development (CEHURD) v Attorney General & Another (Miscellaneous Cause 30 of 2023) [2024] UGHCCD 121 (5 July 2024)
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.