Court directs firm to recall HIV, hypertension drugs from the market


Last Monday, the High Court ordered Lords Healthcare Ltd to quarantine and recall goods covered by the local market drug registration certificates held by Cipla Ltd.

Additionally, Justice David Majanja mandated that the business cease marketing, dispensing, and producing medications, including hypertensive anti-retrovirals.

That came after three powerful pharmaceutical companies—Lords Healthcare Ltd

., Cipla Ltd., and Surgipharm Ltd.—went to court to combat copyright disputes and accuse one another of marketing medicines under confusingly identical trademarks.

The manufacture and distribution of Amlocip NB, Amzart 5, Itorcip, Lozart 50, Lozart H, Ocemax 200 DT, Terbisil 250, and other medications were the subject of a dispute between 

Lords Healthcare Ltd. and Cipla.

The pills were allegedly owned by Cipla and Lords.

When the two businesses decided to collaborate on the production and distribution of medications in the 1980s, their connection officially began. They also agreed to a representation agreement.

Later, the relationship became so bad that lawsuits were eventually filed.

29 years after being born with HIV, my life still has significance.

Justice Majanja rejected Lords’ claim that the registration documents evidenced joint ownership and declared Cipla to be the legitimate owner of the pharmaceuticals.

According to his decision, Lords had infringed Cipla Ltd’s fundamental right to possess and use property of any type under Article 40 of Kenya’s Constitution.

The judge stated, “According to the certificates dated May 8, 2018, the medications are registered with Cipla as the manufacturer, with the business address being under Lords’ care.”

Lords stated that it had created and registered products during the previous three decades that built a reputation.

It also claimed that Cipla and Surgipharm had violated its trademarks by selling medication packs that looked identical to those made by Lords.

In accordance with the lawsuit, Surgipharm was informing consumers that Lords no longer held certain brand names.

The conflict with Cipla forced a change in producers.

However, Cipla asserted in a constitutional appeal that certain of its goods—for which it held drug registration certificates—were being imported into Kenya without its knowledge, agreement, or authorisation. Cipla also sued Lords and the PPB.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *