Wakilii

M/S Princess Pharmacy v National Drug Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No.116 of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 235 · 2018 Judicial Review Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging the rejection of a pharmacy licence application
Decision
Application for judicial review allowed; respondent ordered to issue licence under 2017 guidelines and general damages awarded to applicant

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 the National Drug Authority's decision to reject the applicant's pharmacy licence on grounds of non-compliance with 2018 guidelines was illegal and irrational where the application process commenced under 2017 guidelines and the authority created a legitimate expectation by approving the premises and instructing the applicant to proceed. The court granted certiorari quashing the decision, mandamus compelling issuance of a 2017 licence, and general damages of UGX 15,000,000 for losses incurred.

Outcome

Application for judicial review allowed; respondent ordered to issue licence under 2017 guidelines and general damages awarded to applicant

Facts

The applicant applied for a pharmacy licence in December 2017 under the 2017 licensing guidelines. The National Drug Authority inspected the premises on 13th December 2017 and found them compliant with 2017 guidelines. On 29th December 2017, the last working day of the year, the respondent wrote advising the applicant to formally apply for a 2017 licence. The applicant submitted required documents in early January 2018 after the office reopened. The respondent processed the application, confirmed it passed screening, and instructed the applicant to pay fees, which the applicant did on 30th January 2018. The applicant then set up the pharmacy, hired staff, and incurred expenses. On 6th April 2018, the respondent rejected the application on grounds that it did not comply with 2018 licensing guidelines, which prohibited new pharmacy licences in Kampala.

Issues

  1. Whether the decision complained of is tainted with illegality and irrationality.
  2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the remedies sought.

Orders

  • An order of Certiorari quashing the respondent's decision dated 6th April 2018.
  • An order of Mandamus compelling the respondent to issue a licence of 2017 to enable the applicant to operate within the earlier approved premises, with the licence to be renewed to enable operation in accordance with the 2018 Guidelines.
  • General damages awarded to the applicant in the sum of UGX 15,000,000.
  • Costs of the application awarded to the applicant.

Rules and key headnotes

Legitimate Expectation — Change of Policy — Duty to Act Fairly
Where a public authority has distinctly promised to implement a policy in a specific manner for a specific person who would be substantially affected by a change, the authority must ordinarily keep its promise. Acting contrary to the legitimate expectation constitutes unfairness and abuse of power.
Legitimate Expectation — Requirements for Effectiveness
For a legitimate expectation to be effective, the promise or representation that gave rise to the expectation must be clear, unambiguous, and unqualified. A person cannot claim to have expected a public authority to act in a particular way if the representation was unclear, ambiguous, or qualified.
Irrationality — Test for Gross Unreasonableness
A decision is tainted with irrationality when there has been such gross unreasonableness in the decision taken or act done that no reasonable authority addressing itself to the facts and law before it would have made such a decision. Such a decision is in defiance of logic and acceptable moral standards.
Transitional Application of Guidelines — Change During Application Process
Where an applicant commences an administrative application process under existing guidelines and the public authority approves the application at each stage under those guidelines, the authority cannot subsequently apply new guidelines retrospectively to reject the application. The applicable guidelines are those in force when the process commenced.
Functus Officio — Effect of Prior Approval
Where a public authority has determined and approved an application, instructing the applicant to complete remaining formalities, the authority is functus officio and cannot subsequently reverse its decision without providing compelling reasons and affording the applicant a fair hearing.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Judicature Act s.33
  • Judicature Act s.36
  • Judicature Act s.37
  • Judicature Act s.38
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.3
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.5
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.6
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.7
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.10
  • NDA Professional (Licensing) Guidelines 2017 s.4.8.3.3
  • NDA Professional (Licensing) Guidelines 2018

Cases cited (8)

  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • DOTT Services Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 125 of 2009)
  • Balondemu David v The Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
  • R (Bhatt Murphy) v Independent Assessor [2008] EWCA Civ 755
  • Ayikoru Gladys v The Board of Governors of St Mary's Ediofe Girls Secondary School (HCCS No. 26 of 2016)
  • Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] 1 All ER 904
  • AG of Hong Kong v Ng Yuen Shiu [1983] 2 All ER 346
  • Council of Civil Unions v Minister of the Civil Service [1985] AC 374

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

M_S Princess Pharmacy v National Drug Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No.116 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 235 (16 August 2018)
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.