Share
Kyagulanyi v Museveni & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2021) [2021] UGSC 65 (9 February 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] UGSC 65
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Supreme Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Owiny-Dollo, CJ, Kisaakye, JSC, Arach-Amoko, JSC, Opio-Aweri, JSC, Mwondha, JSC, Mugamba, JSC, Muhanguzi, JSC, Tuhaise, JSC, Mike Chibita, JSC
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2021
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Uganda
- Panel
- Owiny-Dollo, CJ, Kisaakye, JSC, Arach-Amoko, JSC, Opio-Aweri, JSC, Mwondha, JSC, Mugamba, JSC, Muhanguzi, JSC, Tuhaise, JSC, Mike Chibita, JSC
- Case number
- Miscellaneous Application 1 of 2021
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Supreme Court held that the matters raised in the proposed amendments regarding non-compliance with electoral laws and commission of electoral offences were already pleaded in the original petition, and thus did not require amendment. The applicant is at liberty to adduce evidence in support of those matters. However, the issue of qualification of the 1st respondent, as raised in the proposed amended petition, constituted a new matter that falls outside the statutory limitation period for filing a presidential election petition. The law does not permit the introduction of new causes of action after the expiry of the limitation period. Accordingly, the application to amend the petition was disallowed.
Court disposition
application_disallowed
Orders
- The application to amend the presidential election petition is disallowed.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
02
Material facts
Parties
Kyagulanyi Ssentamu Robert
ApplicantYoweri Museveni Tibuhaburwa
RespondentElectoral Commission
RespondentAttorney General
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the proposed amendments to the presidential election petition are permissible under the law.
- 02
Whether the issue of qualification of the 1st respondent can be introduced outside the statutory limitation period.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought to amend the presidential election petition to include additional matters, including alleged non-compliance with electoral laws, commission of electoral offences, and the qualification of the 1st respondent. The applicant argued that these amendments were necessary for the just determination of the petition.
- Respondent
- The respondents opposed the application, contending that the matters of non-compliance and electoral offences were already pleaded in the original petition, and that introducing the issue of qualification of the 1st respondent constituted a new cause of action outside the statutory limitation period for filing presidential election petitions.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Presidential Elections Act, Section 61
Amendments to election petitions must not introduce new causes of action after the statutory limitation period has expired.
- 02
Presidential Elections Act, Section 61
Matters already pleaded in the original petition do not require amendment; evidence must be adduced to prove them.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Supreme Court held that the matters raised in the proposed amendments regarding non-compliance with electoral laws and commission of electoral offences were already pleaded in the original petition, and thus did not require amendment. The applicant is at liberty to adduce evidence in support of those matters. However, the issue of qualification of the 1st respondent, as raised in the proposed amended petition, constituted a new matter that falls outside the statutory limitation period for filing a presidential election petition. The law does not permit the introduction of new causes of action after the expiry of the limitation period. Accordingly, the application to amend the petition was disallowed.
Obiter and limits
- Detailed reasons for the decision will be provided in the final judgment.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Court disposition
application_disallowed
- The application to amend the presidential election petition is disallowed.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Uganda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CORAM: OWINY - DOLLO C. J; KISAAKYE; ARACH-AMOKO; OPIO-AWERI; MWONDHA; MUGAMBA; MUHANGUZI; TUHAISE; CHIBITA; JJ. S. C;
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 01 OF 2021
(Arising from Presidential Petition No. 1 of 2021)
KYAGULANYI SSENTAMU ROBERT::::::::::::::::::::::::::::PPLICANT/PETITIONERS 15
VERSUS
$\vdots$ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
- 1. YOWERI MUSEVENI TIBUHABURWA - 2. ELECTORAL COMMISSION - 3. ATTORNE Y GENERAL
RULING OF COURT
We have perused the application, the replies by the Respondents, and considered the submissions of Counsel for the parties.
Court finds that the matters raised in the proposed amendments pertaining to non-compliance with the laws, and the alleged commission of electoral offences, are already pleaded in the petition. What remains is for the Petitioner to adduce evidence in proof of those matters.
However, Court finds that the issue of qualification of the 1<sup>st</sup> Respondent raised in the proposed amended petition, is a new matter which comes outside the limitation period provided for filing a Presidential election petition. Therefore, we disallow it.
$\mathsf{S}$
$20$
In the event, we disallow the application. We shall give the $\mathsf{S}$ detailed reasons for deciding so, in the final Judgment.
Costs shall be in the cause.
Dated at Kampala this. June 2021 10 Alfonse C. Owiny - Dollo Chief Justice 15 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr. Esther Kisaakye Justice of the Supreme Court . . . . . . 20 Stella Arach-Amoko Justice of the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . Ruby Opio-Aweri 25 Justice of the Supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Faith Mwondha Justice of the Supreme Court 30 ............... Paul Mugamba Justice of the Supreme Court $\overline{2}$
......... Ezekiel Muhanguzi Justice of the Supreme Court
$\forall$
Percy Night Tuhaise<br>Justice of the Supreme Court
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$\cdots \cdots$
. . . . . . . . . *.* Mike Chibita Justice of the Supreme Court
$10$
$\mathsf{S}$
$15\\$
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.