Wakilii

Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Manufacturers Association of Uganda v Attorney General and Uganda National Bureau of Standards [2026] UGHCCD 204

High Court · 2026 Judicial Review Granted in Part AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review by notice of motion, coupled with a prayer for extension of time and validation of the application
Decision
Item 2 of Part II of Schedule 3 to the UNBS (Certification) Regulations, 2021, as amended in 2022, quashed by certiorari and its enforcement prohibited pending compliance with applicable legal and consultative requirements; claims for irrationality, refund and general 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

The High Court granted judicial review of the amended Digital Conformity Mark certification fee. Time was extended because the applicant's good-faith administrative engagement with UNBS and the Ministry reasonably explained the delay, though such engagement does not itself suspend limitation. Once the applicant specifically challenged the consultative process and adduced material casting doubt on it, an evidential burden shifted to the respondents to demonstrate compliance; their explanation that the UGX 18 to UGX 21 increase reflected VAT explained the reason for the amendment but not the process. Illegality and procedural impropriety were established; irrationality was not, the VAT-based fee being intelligible. Certiorari, a declaration and prohibition issued; refund, damages and costs refused.

Outcome

Item 2 of Part II of Schedule 3 to the UNBS (Certification) Regulations, 2021, as amended in 2022, quashed by certiorari and its enforcement prohibited pending compliance with applicable legal and consultative requirements; claims for irrationality, refund and general damages dismissed

Facts

The applicant is an association representing manufacturers of cosmetics and personal care products in Uganda. The second respondent, UNBS, is a statutory body mandated to formulate and enforce standards. In 2021 the Minister responsible for Trade, Industry and Cooperatives made the UNBS (Certification) Regulations, SI No. 68 of 2021, which introduced the Digital Conformity Mark system and prescribed certification fees. By the UNBS (Certification) (Amendment) Regulations, SI No. 108 of 2022, gazetted on 7 October 2022, the fee under Item 2 of Part II of Schedule 3 was revised from UGX 18 to UGX 21 per Stock Keeping Unit. The applicant's members complained that the uniform per-SKU charge, applied irrespective of product size, value or quantity, raised certification costs and that neither the association, its members nor the National Standards Council had been consulted before the amendment. Extensive correspondence and engagements followed with UNBS, the Ministry, the Uganda Manufacturers Association and other Government stakeholders, including correspondence from the Deputy Solicitor General, Permanent Secretary and Executive Director of UNBS concerning whether consultation had preceded the amendment. The respondents maintained the amendment was a lawful VAT-inclusive fiscal adjustment duly gazetted, and that the application was time-barred.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant was entitled to an extension of time within which to institute the judicial review proceedings and validation of the application already filed.
  2. Whether the applicant established grounds of illegality, procedural impropriety or irrationality warranting judicial review of Item 2 of Part II of Schedule 3 to the Uganda National Bureau of Standards (Certification) Regulations, 2021 as amended in 2022.
  3. What remedies, if any, were available to the parties, including certiorari, prohibition, a refund of fees collected, damages and costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's prayer for extension of time within which to institute the judicial review proceedings is granted.
  • The judicial review application filed herein is validated and deemed properly before Court.
  • A declaration is 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 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 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.
  • Nothing in the judgment prevents the respondents or any competent authority from revisiting, re-enacting, amending or implementing a certification fee structure under the UNBS regulatory framework, provided the process complies strictly with the Constitution, the Uganda National Bureau of Standards Act, the Statutory Instruments Act and all applicable procedural and consultative requirements.
  • In any future review, amendment or re-enactment of the impugned regulatory framework, the respondents shall comply with the Constitution, the enabling statute and all applicable procedures governing the making of statutory instruments, and shall maintain an adequate administrative record demonstrating compliance with any consultative or procedural steps undertaken.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Extension of Time — Prior Administrative Engagement as Sufficient Cause
Rule 5 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2009 confers a discretion to enlarge time for sufficient reason, and genuine, documented efforts to resolve a dispute administratively with a public authority before litigating may constitute sufficient cause, although such engagement does not of itself suspend the running of time.
Delegated Legislation — Presumption of Regularity on Gazettement — Rebuttal
A statutory instrument duly published in the Gazette enjoys a presumption of regularity and legality, but the presumption is rebuttable where it is shown that the maker acted outside the enabling statute, failed to comply with a mandatory statutory condition, took account of irrelevant matters or acted contrary to constitutional or statutory requirements.
Delegated Legislation — Consultation — Evidential Burden to Demonstrate Compliance
Where an applicant specifically challenges the existence or adequacy of a consultative process and places material before the court raising doubt as to whether consultation occurred, an evidential burden shifts to the public authority to produce contemporaneous records such as minutes, reports, stakeholder engagement records or council resolutions demonstrating compliance; general assertions are insufficient.
Delegated Legislation — Procedural Safeguards — Fiscal Adjustment No Excuse for Non-Compliance
The donee of delegated legislative power must observe both the substantive limits of the enabling statute and the procedural safeguards attached to the exercise of that power; characterising an amendment as a mere fiscal or tax-alignment adjustment does not dispense with compliance with mandatory statutory procedure.
Irrationality — Wednesbury Threshold — Fiscal and Technical Regulatory Choices
A regulatory fee will be struck down for irrationality only where it is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority properly directing itself on the law and facts could have adopted it; an intelligible explanation such as the inclusion of a VAT component defeats a claim of irrationality, and the appropriateness of a uniform per-unit fee is a matter for the regulator, not the court.
Remedies — Refund and General Damages in Judicial Review — Proof Required
Judicial review remedies are discretionary; a blanket refund will not be ordered where the record does not establish the amounts paid, the payers, the period and the legal basis of recovery, and general damages are not awarded merely because an impugned decision is quashed but must be pleaded and proved as recoverable in an ordinary action.
Constitutional Values in Rule-Making — Articles 38 and 42 and National Objective X — Participation and Fair Administrative Action
The exercise of delegated legislative power must accord with the constitutional values of transparency, accountability, participation and fair administrative action embodied in Articles 38 and 42 of the Constitution and National Objective X, and where participation is prescribed, relied upon or reasonably necessary, the authority must maintain a demonstrable record of the consultative process.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (5)

  • Rosette Kizito v Administrator General and Others (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 [2026] UGHCCD 204 (19 June 2026)
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.