Wakilii

Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 260 OF 2019)

High Court · [2020] UGHCCD 85 · 2020 Application Granted — Judicial Review AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging delegated legislation imposing trade licensing fees on pharmacies and drug stores
Decision
Application for judicial review allowed; impugned provisions of delegated legislation quashed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 held that items 30 and 35 of the Trade (Licensing)(Amendment of Schedule) Instrument SI No. 2 of 2017 are ultra vires the Trade (Licensing) Act and the National Drug Policy and Authority Act. The court quashed these provisions, finding that requiring pharmacies and drug stores to pay both trade licensing fees and fees under the National Drug Policy and Authority Act constitutes illegal double licensing. The specific legislation regulating pharmacies overrides the general trade licensing regime under the principle of generalia specialibus non derogant.

Outcome

Application for judicial review allowed; impugned provisions of delegated legislation quashed

Facts

The Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda, representing pharmacies and drug stores, brought an application for judicial review challenging the Trade (Licensing)(Amendment of Schedule) Instrument SI No. 2 of 2017. The impugned instrument required pharmacies and drug stores to pay trade licensing fees to local authorities under items 30 and 35. The applicant argued this constituted double taxation, as its members were already required to pay licensing fees to the National Drug Authority under the National Drug Policy and Authority Act Cap 206 and related regulations. The applicant contended that regulation of pharmaceutical businesses was the exclusive domain of the National Drug Authority under specific legislation, and that the Minister of Trade exceeded his delegated powers by including pharmacies and drug stores in the trade licensing schedule. The Attorney General opposed the application, arguing that the trade licensing fees served a different purpose from the regulatory fees charged by the National Drug Authority, and that the Legislature was aware of existing licensing regimes when it passed the amendment.

Issues

  1. Whether the case is a proper case for judicial review?
  2. Whether items 30 and 35 of (Part A) of the Trade (Licensing)(Amendment of Schedule) S.I No.2 of 2017 is ultra vires the Trade (Licensing) Act Cap 101 as amended by the Trade (Licensing)(Amendment) Act No. 28 of 2015?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • An order of Certiorari issued to quash items 30 and 35 of (Part A) of the Trade (Licensing)(Amendment of Schedule) S.I No.2 of 2017 as ultra vires the Trade (Licensing) Act Cap 101 as amended by the Trade (Licensing)(Amendment) Act No. 28 of 2015 and National Drug Policy & Authority Act Cap 206.
  • The applicant's members are not liable to pay for trade licence fees in respect of their pharmacies and drug stores pursuant to items 30 and 35 of Part A of the Trade (Licensing) (Amendment of Schedule) Instrument No. 2 of 2017.
  • Application allowed.
  • No order as to costs (each party to bear its own costs).

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Scope and Grounds — Review of Delegated Legislation
A delegated legislation in the form of a statutory instrument passed by a Minister is amenable to judicial review where it is alleged to exceed the powers conferred by the parent Act. Judicial review may be granted on grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety.
Administrative Law — Delegated Legislation — Ultra Vires Doctrine
A delegated legislation can be challenged and struck down as ultra vires if it exceeds the limits of authority conferred by the parent Act, conflicts with other existing legislation, or is manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. The conferment of rule-making power does not enable the rule-making authority to make a rule that travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act or is inconsistent therewith.
Statutory Interpretation — Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant — Specific Legislation Prevails Over General
Where two pieces of legislation conflict, with one being general and the other specific, the specific legislation overrides the general legislation on the subject matter. This principle (generalia specialibus non derogant) means that general things do not derogate from special things, and no later general Act can prevail over an earlier special Act on the same subject.
Administrative Law — Licensing Regimes — Double Licensing Prohibited
Where a business or profession is already subject to a specific licensing regime under sector-specific legislation, it is illegal and irrational for a general trade licensing law to impose additional licensing fees on the same activity. The issuance of two licenses for the same business by different levels of government constitutes double collection that is unfair to the licensee.
Statutory Interpretation — Delegated Powers — Limits on Ministerial Discretion
The repeal of an exemption provision in a parent Act does not confer on a Minister unlimited discretion to impose licensing requirements on businesses already regulated under specific legislation. A delegate must exercise jurisdiction within the four corners of its delegation, and actions taken beyond that scope have no legal sanction and are challengeable by way of judicial review.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (6)

  • Aggrey Bwire v Attorney General (CACA No. 9 of 2009)
  • Amrit Goyal v Hari Chand Goyal (Commercial Court Civil Suit No. 432 of 2011)
  • Stanbic Bank of Uganda Ltd v Attorney General (HCT-00-CC-MA 0645 of 2011)
  • Uganda Law Society v Kampala Capital City Authority (Miscellaneous Cause No. 243 of 2017)
  • [1981] 2 All ER 93
  • Eaton Towers Uganda Limited v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 84 of 2019)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda v Attorney General (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 260 OF 2019) [2020] UGHCCD 85 (8 May 2020)
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.