Wakilii

M/S Princess Pharmacy v National Drug Authority (MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO.116 OF 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 98 · 2018 Judicial Review Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of an administrative decision refusing a pharmacy operating licence
Decision
Application granted. Respondent's decision quashed and mandamus issued compelling issuance of 2017 licence with subsequent renewal under 2018 guidelines

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 respondent's decision to deny the applicant a pharmacy licence under the 2018 guidelines was tainted with illegality and irrationality where the applicant had applied under the 2017 guidelines, received approval on 29 December 2017, but was only able to submit final documents in January 2018 due to timing. The doctrine of legitimate expectation required that the respondent honour its clear representation that the applicant would receive a 2017 licence. Certiorari granted quashing the decision, mandamus issued compelling the respondent to issue the 2017 licence, and general damages of UGX 15,000,000 awarded.

Outcome

Application granted. Respondent's decision quashed and mandamus issued compelling issuance of 2017 licence with subsequent renewal under 2018 guidelines

Facts

The applicant applied on 4 December 2017 for a licence to operate a retail pharmacy under the 2017 licensing guidelines. The respondent inspected the premises on 13 December 2017 and found all requirements satisfied. On 29 December 2017, the last working day of the year, the respondent sent a letter confirming the premises met the requirements and advised the applicant to formally apply for the 2017 licence. The applicant submitted the required documents on 2 January 2018, the first working day of 2018, and the application passed screening. The applicant paid the requisite fees on 30 January 2018. On 6 April 2018, the respondent rejected the application on the ground that it did not conform to the 2018 guidelines, which barred new pharmacy licences in Kampala. The applicant sought judicial review challenging the rejection.

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

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Grounds — Illegality and Irrationality
For an applicant to succeed under judicial review, they must prove the decision was tainted by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety. The dominant consideration in administrative decision-making is that public power should be exercised to benefit the public interest, and officials have a duty to accord citizens their rights including the right to fair and equal treatment.
Legitimate Expectation — Clear and Unambiguous Representation — Duty to Honour
Where a public authority has made a clear, unambiguous, and unqualified promise to implement a policy in a specific manner for a specific person or group who would be substantially affected by a change, ordinarily it must keep its promise. Acting contrary to the legitimate expectation would be to act unfairly as to perpetrate an abuse of power.
Legitimate Expectation — Basis and Scope
Legitimate expectations may include expectations which go beyond legal rights, provided they have some reasonable basis. The expectation may be based on some statement or undertaking by, or on behalf of, a public authority which has the duty of making the decision. When a public authority has promised to follow a certain procedure, it is in the interest of good administration that it should act fairly and implement its promise, so long as implementation does not interfere with its statutory duty.
Change of Policy — Constraint by Duty of Fairness
The power of authorities to change policy is constrained by the legal duty to be fair. A change of policy which would otherwise be legally unexceptionable may be held unfair by reason of prior action, or inaction, by the authority.
Irrationality — Gross Unreasonableness — Defiance of Logic
Irrationality or unreasonableness exists 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.
Judicial Review Remedies — Certiorari and Mandamus
Where an administrative decision is tainted with illegality, unfairness and irrationality, an order of certiorari will issue quashing the decision. An order of mandamus may issue compelling the authority to perform its duty in accordance with the law and its prior representations.

Legislation cited (10)

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 Service Unions v Minister for 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 98 (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.