OSAE VRS FOOD AND DRUGS AUTHORITY (J1/05/2023) [2024] GHASC 30 (19 June 2024)

OSAE VRS FOOD AND DRUGS AUTHORITY (J1/05/2023) [2024] GHASC 30 (19 June 2024)

The majority held that Guideline 3.2.10 is not discriminatory within the meaning of Article 17(1) and (2) of the Constitution because it applies equally to all well-known personalities and professionals, does not single out any protected class, and is justified by the FDA's statutory mandate to protect public health. The restriction is reasonable and proportional, supported by international best practices and research on the influence of celebrities in alcohol advertising. The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the guideline was arbitrary, excessive, or inconsistent with the Constitution. The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction was properly invoked for enforcement of communal rights,...

Citation
OSAE VRS FOOD AND DRUGS AUTHORITY (J1/05/2023) [2024] GHASC 30 (19 June 2024)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mark Darlington Osae; 1st Defendant: Food and Drugs Authority; 2nd Defendant: Attorney General
Court
ghasc
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
19 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Writ (original Jurisdiction) / Final Judgment (supreme Court, Ghana)
Outcome
Plaintiff's action dismissed (majority); Guideline 3.2.10 upheld as constitutional. (Dissent: Guideline 3.2.10 declared unconstitutional and struck down.)
Legal Topics
Equality Before the Law, Freedom From Discrimination, Administrative Guidelines, Advertising Regulation, Public Health Policy, Judicial Review, Interpretation and Enforcement of Constitutional Rights
Source Language
eng
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Public Health Law Equality Before the Law Freedom From Discrimination Administrative Guidelines Advertising Regulation Public Health Policy +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Darlington Osae

Plaintiff

Food and Drugs Authority

1st Defendant

Attorney General

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Writ (original Jurisdiction) / Final Judgment (supreme Court, Ghana)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Guideline 3.2.10 of the FDA Guidelines for the Advertisement of Foods, prohibiting well-known personalities or professionals from advertising alcoholic beverages, is discriminatory, inconsistent with, or in contravention of Article 17(1) and (2) of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana and thus unconstitutional.
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction was properly invoked for enforcement and/or interpretation of the Constitution in this matter.
  3. 3 Whether the restriction imposed by Guideline 3.2.10 is necessary, reasonable, and proportional under the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that Guideline 3.2.10 is not discriminatory within the meaning of Article 17(1) and (2) of the Constitution because it applies equally to all well-known personalities and professionals, does not single out any protected class, and is justified by the FDA's statutory mandate to protect public health. The restriction is reasonable and proportional, supported by international best practices and research on the influence of celebrities in alcohol advertising. The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the guideline was arbitrary, excessive, or inconsistent with the Constitution. The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction was properly invoked for enforcement of communal rights,...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action dismissed (majority); Guideline 3.2.10 upheld as constitutional. (Dissent: Guideline 3.2.10 declared unconstitutional and struck down.)

Orders

  • Action dismissed; no relief granted to Plaintiff (majority).
  • (Dissent) Guideline 3.2.10 declared unconstitutional and struck down; Defendants perpetually restrained from enforcing it.