Wakilii

Women's Probono Initiative and Nakyanzi Getulida v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 178 of 2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 75 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review of Parliament's decision to impose VAT on adult diapers
Decision
Application for judicial review dismissed; applicants directed to proper constitutional remedy if challenging legislation

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 Acts of Parliament (legislation) are not administrative decisions amenable to judicial review. Parliament's enactment of the Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act 2023, imposing VAT on adult diapers, was within its constitutional mandate under Articles 79 and 152. The applicants failed to demonstrate illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in the legislative process. The proper recourse for challenging legislation is a constitutional petition under Article 137, not judicial review. Application dismissed.

Outcome

Application for judicial review dismissed; applicants directed to proper constitutional remedy if challenging legislation

Facts

Parliament of Uganda passed the Value Added Tax (Amendment) Act 2023, which removed adult diapers from the list of tax-exempt goods under section 8(a), thereby imposing VAT on all diapers. The Ministry of Finance had initially proposed exempting adult diapers for medical reasons targeting the elderly, but during plenary discussion on 4 May 2023, Parliament decided to tax all categories of diapers, reasoning they could not be differentiated by size. The President assented to the Act on 23 June 2023. The applicants, a legal aid provider and an individual user of adult diapers, sought judicial review, arguing the decision was irrational and unfair to persons with disabilities, women with fistula, and others who depend on adult diapers daily.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is amenable for judicial review.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs as the matter involved public interest.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Amenability — Acts of Parliament — Distinction Between Legislative Acts and Administrative Decisions
Acts of Parliament (legislation) as opposed to actions of Parliament are not administrative decisions amenable to judicial review. The proper recourse for challenging legislation is to file a constitutional petition in the Constitutional Court under Article 137 of the Constitution, alleging that the Act or its provisions are inconsistent with the Constitution.
Constitutional Law — Legislative Power — Parliament's Mandate to Make Laws and Impose Taxes
Parliament holds constitutional power under Article 79(1) to make laws on any matter for the peace, order, development and good governance of Uganda, and under Article 152(1) no tax shall be imposed except under the authority of an Act of Parliament. Parliament's exercise of this mandate to impose taxes cannot be faulted as acting ultra vires.
Judicial Review — Grounds — Illegality, Irrationality and Procedural Impropriety
The grounds upon which an application for judicial review must be based are illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. Judicial review is concerned with the correctness of the decision-making process, not with the correctness of the decision itself.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Scope and Limits — Protection from Abuse of Power
Judicial review is intended to protect individuals from abuse of power by authorities both judicial and quasi-judicial, but it is not intended to take away from those authorities the powers and discretions properly vested in them by law and to substitute the courts as the bodies making the decisions.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Women's Probono Initiative and Nakyanzi Getulida v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause 178 of 2023) [2026] UGHCCD 75 (19 March 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.