TOBACCO CONTROL LAWS

British American Tobacco Ltd. v. Ministry of Health

British American Tobacco (Kenya) appealed a 2016 court decision, which upheld nearly all elements of Kenya’s Tobacco Control Regulations. The appeals court ruled that the tobacco company’s appeal had no merit and affirmed the decision of the lower court. The earlier ruling upheld nearly all elements of the Regulations, which are designed to implement the Tobacco Control Act, including:

- a 2% annual contribution by the tobacco industry to help fund tobacco control education, research, and cessation;
- picture health warnings;
- ingredient disclosure;
- smoke-free environments in streets, walkways, verandas adjacent to public places and in private vehicles where children are present;
- disclosure of annual tobacco sales and other industry disclosures; and
- regulations limiting interaction between the tobacco industry and public health officials.

The appeals court agreed with the lower court that the tobacco company had been given adequate opportunities for participation in the development of the regulations and that the regulations do not violate the tobacco company’s constitutional rights. 

DOWNLOAD DOCUMENT

British American Tobacco Ltd v. Ministry of Health, et al, Civil Appeal No. 112 of 2016 (2017).

  • Kenya
  • Feb 17, 2017
  • Court of Appeal at Nairobi
View Case History

Parties

Plaintiff British American Tobacco Ltd

Defendant

  • Attorney General
  • Cabinet Secretary for the Ministry of Health
  • Tobacco Control Board

Third Party

  • Consumer Information Network
  • Kenya Tobacco Control Alliance
  • Mastermind Tobacco (K) Limited

Legislation Cited

Tobacco Control Regulations, 2014

International/Regional Instruments Cited

WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC)

Related Documents

None

Type of Litigation

Challenge to Government Policies Relating to Tobacco Control/Public Health
Tobacco companies or front groups may challenge any legislative or regulatory measure that affects their business interests. Unlike public interest litigation, these cases seek to weaken health measures. These cases frequently involve the industry proceeding against the government. For example, a group of restaurant owners challenging a smoke free law as unconstitutional.

Tobacco Control Topics

Industry Interference
Measures to protect health policies from the commercial or other vested interests of the tobacco industry. (See FCTC Art. 5.3)
Smoke Free Measures
Measures to reduce or eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke. (See FCTC Art. 8)
Contents and Disclosures Measures
Measures for testing, measuring, regulating, or disclosing the contents and emissions of tobacco products. (See FCTC Arts. 9 and 10)
Packaging and Labeling Measures
Measures to regulate the marketing on tobacco packages. This includes both bans on false, misleading, deceptive packaging, as well as required health warnings on packaging. (See FCTC Art. 11)

Substantive Issues

Right to Equal Protection
A violation of the right to equal protection under the law, or another form of discrimination. The industry may claim that regulations discriminate against tobacco companies or tobacco products. Smokers may claim that addiction is a health condition, so regulations discriminate against them based on their health condition. Facilities subject to smoke free laws may claim that smoke free (SF) exceptions (e.g., hotel rooms, mental hospitals, etc.) unfairly discriminate against SF businesses because the law should apply to all locations equally.
Right to Procedural Due Process
A violation of the right to procedural fairness. For example, a party may claim that a government agency did not consult with public or stakeholders when issuing regulations.
Right to Property
A violation of property rights, sometimes in the form of an expropriation or a taking by the government. The tobacco industry may argue that regulations amount to a taking of property rights because they prevent the use of intellectual property such as trademarks.
Right to Privacy
This is the right to a private personal and family life without intrusion from the government.
Intellectual Property Violation
Regulations may infringe on intellectual property rights, which may be protected by international treaties. The industry may argue that bans on "deceptive" packaging that eliminate the use of colors, numbers or trademarks threaten intellectual property rights.
Non-Mandatory WHO FCTC Guidelines
The WHO FCTC Guidelines are not mandatory for Parties and merely suggest policies, or a discussion on the effect of the Guidelines on national legislation.
Procedural Defect
The court might consider procedural matters without touching the merits of the case. These might include: improper joinder, when third parties, such as Health NGOs or government officials, seek to become parties to the suit; lack of standing, where a plaintiff fails to meet the minimum requirements to bring suit; lack of personal jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction to rule over the defendant; or lack of subject matter jurisdiction, where the court does not have jurisdiction over the issue at suit.
Ultra Vires Regulation
Subsequent regulations exceed the scope of the originating law.
Undue Burden
A discussion on whether the regulations impose an undue burden on the tobacco industry. This argument may involve the costs of implementing regulatory measures.

Type of Tobacco Product

None

1400 I Street N.W.,
Suite 1200,
Washington, DC 20005
United States of America

Phone: (202) 296-5469

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is a BBB-accredited charity and a
Guidestar Exchange Gold Participant.

© 2024 Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Trademarks | Copyright | Privacy

Site created and maintained by