EABL loses its recourse against the use of warning labels in bold

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the East African Breweries Limited (EABL) beer manufacturer challenging a law pbaded a few years ago requiring health warnings for beer bottles.

She said she sees nothing wrong with the law because it is necessary to protect consumers of alcoholic beverages in accordance with the provisions of Article 46 of the Constitution.

"We do not see any rights violation when the producer, seller or user of an article or substance potentially harmful to others is required to wear or present a warning and a warning. for those likely to be affected, "said Judges Roselyn Nambuye, Patrick Kiage and Otieno Odek.

The court upheld a decision by Supreme Court Judge Isaac Lenaola (then High Court Judge) dismissing the case by EABL, arguing that it was unfounded and stating that the judge did not agree with the case. had not made a mistake in rejecting the invitation to comment on the percentage area required for the bottles. the message.

They stated that the courts did not have, by their nature, the expertise and resources necessary for a thorough review of legislative policy and how it was translated into law.

In addition, the judges rejected accusations that the law was pbaded without consultation, saying that there was evidence of consultations with the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse (NACADA).

In the case, EABL had challenged the constitutionality of Section 32 of the Liquor Control Act, 2010, which requires the manufacturer, importer, seller or distributor of alcoholic beverages. an alcoholic beverage to ensure that each package contains at least two of the health warnings. English or Kiswahili.

The beer manufacturers' argument was that the requirement would significantly reduce the brand name, value and identity, all of which are an important part of its intellectual property.

The company stated that this decision constituted a violation of its right to property, enshrined in Article 40 of the Constitution.

EABL accused Judge Lenaola of not having understood that she did not object to the health warning labels. In fact, they had always been willing to respect reasonable and proportionate requirements.

However, the judge failed to conclude that the health warning label prescribed by the provision was a form of forced and thus unconstitutional speech.

EABL argued that this article violated Article 24 (1) of the Constitution in that it claims to limit its fundamental rights and freedoms.

They argued that Parliament had not undertaken any serious and sustainable comparative study on the effectiveness of such warning labels prior to the enactment of the law.

For its part, NACADA stated that this provision had the overarching objective of protecting the public "socially, economically and healthily" and that it would be wrong to engage with AABL, which sought to override its interests in as commercial capital.

NACADA added that beer drinkers have a basic right to access products protecting their health and other interests, and under section 46 (1) (b) a right to information. necessary to their full knowledge.

The court heard that it had been proven that a health warning message readable on a bottle of alcohol had a positive psychological impact on society and that it was contributed in the long term to fight against the abuse of alcohol.

NACADA rejected what they called EABL's "unproven" claim that the labeling would cost the company about 880 million shillings to replace all of its bottle labeling equipment.