The High Court in Kampala has annulled key provisions of Uganda’s cosmetics certification fee structure, ruling that the government failed to demonstrate adequate consultation with affected manufacturers before increasing charges under the Digital Conformity Mark (DCM) regime.
In a judgment delivered on 19 June 2026, Justice Collins Acellam of the Civil Division of the High Court partially allowed a judicial review application filed by the Cosmetics and Personal Care Products Manufacturers Association of Uganda against the Attorney General and the Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS).
The dispute centred on amendments made in 2022 to the UNBS Certification Regulations, which increased the per-unit Digital Conformity Mark fee from 18 shillings to 21 shillings for regulated products, including cosmetics and personal care items.
The association argued that the adjustment was introduced without meaningful stakeholder participation and imposed a uniform charge per Stock Keeping Unit (SKU), regardless of product size or value.
Before addressing the substance of the dispute, the court first granted the association’s request to file its case out of the prescribed time limits.
The judge accepted that although the regulations were gazetted in October 2022, manufacturers had engaged government agencies in extended consultations in an effort to resolve the dispute before resorting to litigation.
The court found that these engagements constituted a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting that good-faith attempts at administrative resolution should not automatically bar access to judicial review.
Key findings: consultation gap, but not irrational policy
On the merits, the court examined whether the amendment was unlawful, irrational, or procedurally improper.
Justice Acellam held that the UNBS and the responsible minister acted within their legal powers in amending the regulations and that the fee adjustment itself was not irrational.
The court accepted the government’s explanation that the 3 shillings increase was linked to Value Added Tax alignment and did not, on its own, amount to an absurd or unreasonable policy choice.
However, the court found a critical procedural flaw: the regulators failed to provide sufficient evidence that proper consultations had been conducted with affected stakeholders before the amendment was made.
“The Respondents did not place before Court sufficient material to verify compliance with the consultative process,” the judge observed, concluding that this amounted to procedural impropriety and illegality in the making of the regulation.
Certification fee quashed
As a result, the court issued an order of certiorari, effectively quashing Item 2 under Part II of Schedule 3 of the UNBS Certification Regulations as amended in 2022.
It also issued a prohibition order restraining enforcement of the contested fee structure unless and until lawful procedures are followed.
The ruling means UNBS cannot continue implementing the disputed per-SKU certification charge in its current form until the regulatory process is redone in compliance with statutory and constitutional requirements.
Despite siding with the manufacturers on the core legal challenge, the court declined to order a blanket refund of fees already collected, citing lack of precise financial evidence.
It also rejected claims for general damages, noting that the matter was primarily a public law dispute rather than a proven private compensation claim.
No costs were awarded to either party.
Wider implications for regulation
The case reinforces the constitutional duty of public bodies to ensure participation and transparency when making delegated legislation affecting industry players.
The court emphasized that while regulators have technical discretion, they must maintain clear records showing how consultation requirements were met.
Legal analysts say the decision places renewed pressure on regulators such as Uganda National Bureau of Standards to strengthen stakeholder engagement processes, particularly in sectors where compliance fees directly affect production costs.
The ruling also serves as a reminder that even where policies are economically justified, failure to demonstrate procedural fairness can be enough to invalidate them in court.
The Attorney General, who defended the case on behalf of the state, has not yet publicly indicated whether the government will appeal the decision.
ENDS.
