Wakilii

Pine Pharmacy Ltd & 8 Ors v National Drug Authority (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 0142 OF 2016)

High Court · [2017] UGHCCD 54 · 2017 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review challenging refusal to issue licenses to pharmacies operating both retail and wholesale business on the same premises
Decision
Application dismissed as moot without costs

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations fading — 5 citing cases on record, 5 in the most recent three data years. 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 dismissed an application for judicial review seeking to quash the National Drug Authority's decision to refuse licenses to pharmacies operating both retail and wholesale business on the same premises. The court held that the application had become moot because the respondent had issued new Professional Guidelines on Licensing of Pharmacies and Drug Shops 2017 which superseded the 2016 guidelines and circular that formed the basis of the dispute, thereby removing the live controversy between the parties.

Outcome

Application dismissed as moot without costs

Facts

The applicants are nine pharmaceutical operators who filed a representative action on behalf of 265 pharmaceutical operators. The National Drug Authority issued Circular No. 002/ID/2016 dated 21 April 2016 stopping issuance of licenses to pharmacies operating both retail and wholesale business on the same premises, effective 1 January 2017. The applicants contended this decision was illegal, irrational, made in bad faith, and had no legal basis under the National Drug Policy and Authority (Licensing) Regulations 2014. They filed an application for judicial review seeking certiorari, prohibition, declarations, and damages. While the application was pending, the respondent issued new Professional Guidelines on Licensing of Pharmacies and Drug Shops 2017 which no longer prohibited dual licensing on the same premises, and licenses were issued to the applicants.

Issues

  1. Whether the application has become a moot exercise?
  2. Whether the applicants' affidavit in support of the application is prolix and incurably defective for offending Order 19 rules 3(1) and 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs of the application.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Mootness — Application Becomes Academic When Dispute No Longer Live
An application for judicial review becomes moot and should be dismissed when subsequent events have removed the live controversy between the parties, rendering the matter academic and the orders sought incapable of practical effect.
Administrative Law — Mootness — Supersession of Impugned Decision by New Guidelines
Where an administrative body issues new guidelines or regulations that supersede the contested guidelines which formed the basis of a judicial review application, the application becomes moot as the impugned decision has ceased to have any legal effect.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Discretion Where Mootness Caused by Respondent's Conduct
Where an application is dismissed as moot due to events created by the respondent after the filing of the application, it may be unfair to award costs to the respondent, and the court may exercise its discretion to order each party to bear their own costs.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.3(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.6(1)
  • National Drug Policy and Authority (Licensing) Regulations 2014
  • National Drug Policy and Authority (Certificate of Suitability of Premises) Regulations 2014

Cases cited (3)

  • Julius Maganda v National Resistance Movement (HCMA No. 154 of 2010)
  • Joseph Borowski v Attorney General of Canada [1989] 1 SCR
  • Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers [1978] AC 435

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Pine Pharmacy Ltd & 8 Ors v National Drug Authority (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 0142 OF 2016) [2017] UGHCCD 54 (15 February 2017)
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.