The Supreme Court yesterday adjourned its decision in a case challenging the tobacco control law to November 26.
Cigarette manufacturer British American Tobacco had challenged the Tobacco Control Act at the High Court in April 2015 saying it is illegal.
The law, published by the Cabinet Secretary for Health in December 2014, provides for large graphic and text health warnings and mandatory disclosures of tobacco product ingredients.
It also imposes a requirement on manufacturers to pay compensation for harm suffered of 2 per cent of the value of tobacco products manufactured or imported.
The funds are to be used in tobacco control research, cessation and rehabilitation programmes.
BAT sought temporary orders to hold off the implementation of the regulations before the High Court heard and determined their appeal.
The High Court ruled in favour of BAT on June 4, 2015, and the tobacco regulations were suspended temporarily.
However, in its final decision, the court held in favour of the government stating that the regulations were constitutional. The law came into effect six months later.
BAT appealed this ruling, and on September 22, 2016, the Court of Appeal again stopped the implementation of the regulations for a period of 30 days pending the hearing and determination of the appeal. Hearing was scheduled for December 16, 2016.
The Court of Appeal in February 2017 ruled in favour of the Ministry of Health saying that it had an obligation of safeguarding the health interests of Kenyans by implementing regulations under the Tobacco Control Act (2014).
BAT filed a case at the Supreme Court to challenge the Court of Appeal’s dismissal of its plea.
The cigarette company asked the Supreme Court to throw out the Tobacco Control Regulations of 2014, arguing that they were introduced arbitrarily.
BAT and Mastermind Tobacco told five Supreme Court judges that the regulations were developed to restrict their commercial interests.
The British firm argued that the regulations were created without proper public participation and stakeholder consultations.
Through their lawyers, the companies said a statutory instruments act was violated in developing the regulations.
They said there was a failure to develop a regulatory impact assessment to address issues arising out of the enforcement of the regulations.
The company said it was aggrieved with the provisions limiting interactions between public officials and the tobacco industry, which it termed as discriminatory and a violation of its constitutional rights.
