Wakilii

Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Manufacturers Association of Uganda v Attorney General and Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Miscellaneous Cause No. 203 of 2024)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 203 Application Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review application challenging the validity of a fee amendment in subsidiary legislation
Decision
Application for extension of time granted; judicial review application validated; impugned amendment quashed for procedural impropriety and illegality; prohibition issued against further implementation until legal requirements complied with; claims for refund and damages dismissed

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

Held that sufficient cause for extension of time was established where the Applicant pursued administrative engagements before litigation. On the merits, the court found that the process leading to the amendment of the Digital Conformity Mark certification fee from UGX 18 to UGX 21 per Stock Keeping Unit was procedurally improper and unlawful because the Respondents failed to demonstrate compliance with requisite consultative processes. The amendment was quashed by certiorari, and an order of prohibition was issued. However, the amendment was not found to be irrational, and claims for refund of fees and general damages were dismissed.

Outcome

Application for extension of time granted; judicial review application validated; impugned amendment quashed for procedural impropriety and illegality; prohibition issued against further implementation until legal requirements complied with; claims for refund and damages dismissed

Facts

The Applicant, an association representing cosmetics and personal care products manufacturers, challenged an amendment to subsidiary legislation. In 2021, the Minister responsible for Trade, Industry and Cooperatives enacted the Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Certification) Regulations, 2021, introducing the Digital Conformity Mark (DCM) system with certification fees. In 2022, the Minister amended these Regulations by increasing the certification fee from UGX 18 to UGX 21 per Stock Keeping Unit. The amendment was published in the Uganda Gazette on 7th October 2022. Members of the Applicant association raised concerns about the fee structure, implementation and financial implications. Engagements and correspondence followed between the Applicant, UNBS, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives, and other government stakeholders. The Applicant subsequently instituted judicial review proceedings, contending that the amendment was made without adequate consultation, was unreasonable, and imposed a disproportionate financial burden on manufacturers.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicant is entitled to the extension of time and validation of the judicial review application sought.
  2. Whether the Applicant has established grounds warranting the intervention of this Court in judicial review and if so, what remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Applicant's prayer for extension of time within which to institute these judicial review proceedings is hereby granted.
  • The judicial review application filed herein is hereby validated and deemed properly before Court.
  • A declaration is hereby issued that the process leading to the enactment of Item 2 under Part II of Schedule 3 to the Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Certification) Regulations, 2021, as amended by the Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Certification) (Amendment) Regulations, 2022, was procedurally improper and unlawful.
  • An order of certiorari is hereby issued removing into this Court and quashing Item 2 under Part II of Schedule 3 to the Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Certification) Regulations, 2021, as amended by the Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Certification) (Amendment) Regulations, 2022.
  • An order of prohibition is hereby issued prohibiting the Respondents, their servants, agents and/or assigns from implementing, enforcing or giving effect to the impugned amendment unless and until the applicable legal and procedural requirements are complied with.
  • The Applicant's claim that the impugned amendment is irrational and unreasonable is dismissed.
  • The prayer for a refund of monies allegedly collected pursuant to the impugned amendment is declined.
  • The prayer for general damages is declined.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause
An applicant seeking extension of time under Rule 5 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 must demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay by providing a reasonable, credible explanation that accounts for the failure to take the required procedural step within the prescribed time. Where an applicant has pursued genuine attempts at administrative resolution in good faith before coming to court, such conduct may constitute sufficient cause for extension of time.
Judicial Review — Grounds — Illegality
Where an applicant specifically challenges the existence and adequacy of a consultative process preceding the enactment of delegated legislation, an evidential burden shifts to the public authority to demonstrate compliance with the required process. The burden is ordinarily discharged by producing contemporaneous material such as minutes, reports, correspondence, stakeholder engagement records or Council resolutions showing that the requisite consultative process was undertaken.
Judicial Review — Procedural Impropriety — Consultation
Where Parliament delegates legislative authority to the Executive, the donee of that power must comply not only with the substantive limits of the enabling statute but also with any procedural safeguards attached to the exercise of delegated power. Failure to demonstrate compliance with a required consultative process renders the exercise of delegated legislative power unlawful and amenable to judicial review intervention on the ground of procedural impropriety.
Judicial Review — Irrationality — Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Under the Wednesbury principle, a decision will be irrational only if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority, properly directing itself on the law and the facts, could have reached it. Courts must be slow to interfere with fiscal, technical or economic choices made by specialized statutory bodies. The threshold for establishing irrationality is deliberately high.
Judicial Review — Remedies — Certiorari and Prohibition
Where delegated legislation has been made in breach of procedural requirements and the decision-making process is tainted by illegality and procedural impropriety, the remedies of certiorari and prohibition are appropriate. Certiorari lies to quash the impugned provision and prohibition lies to restrain the public body from implementing or enforcing the unlawful provision unless and until the applicable legal requirements are complied with.
Judicial Review — Remedies — Refund and Damages
A refund is a consequential monetary remedy in judicial review that requires clear proof of the amounts paid, the persons who paid, the period of payment, and the legal basis upon which the money is recoverable. Judicial review proceedings are ordinarily summary in nature and are not always suited to detailed assessment of individual monetary claims unless the evidence is clear and uncontested. Damages in judicial review are not granted merely because an impugned decision has been quashed; they must be pleaded, proved and must arise from a matter in respect of which damages would have been recoverable had the claim been brought by ordinary action.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (5)

  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 9 of 1986)
  • Bitamissi v Rwabuganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 79 of 2014)
  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Manufacturers Association of Uganda v Attorney General and Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Miscellaneous Cause No. 203 of 2024) [2026] UGH
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.