Share
Mujungu v Tumwine and Another (Election Petition Application No. 26 of 2022) [2022] UGCA 118 (28 March 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] UGCA 118
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Kiryabwire, JA, Musota, JA, Gashirabake, JA
- Case number
- Election Petition Application No. 26 of 2022
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Panel
- Kiryabwire, JA, Musota, JA, Gashirabake, JA
- Case number
- Election Petition Application No. 26 of 2022
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court, guided by the principle of dispensing substantive justice and the consent of all parties, allowed the validation of the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal in Election Petition Application No. 26 of 2022. The related applications seeking to strike out the appeal (No. 25 of 2022 and No. 29 of 2022) were withdrawn by consent, and the Court ordered that each party bear its own costs. The decision was based on the parties' agreement and the Court's responsibility to facilitate the just, expeditious, and efficient resolution of election petition matters.
Court disposition
application allowed by consent; related applications withdrawn; each party to bear own costs
Orders
- Validation of the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal in Election Petition Application No. 26 of 2022 is granted.
- Applications No. 25 of 2022 and No. 29 of 2022 are withdrawn by consent of the parties.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mujungu Jennifer
Applicant Counsel: Jude ByamukamaTumwine Anne Mary
Respondent Counsel: Thomas Ochaya & Esawa IsingomaElectoral Commission
Respondent Counsel: Erick Sabit03
Procedural history
Posture
Election Petition Application / Ruling on Application for Extension/validation and Withdrawal of Related Applications
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the time for filing and serving the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal in Election Petition Appeal No. 77 of 2021 should be extended or validated.
- 02
Whether Applications No. 25 of 2022 and No. 29 of 2022 seeking to strike out the appeal should be withdrawn by consent of the parties.
- 03
Who should bear the costs of the withdrawn applications.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought extension of time and/or validation of the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal, arguing that the interests of substantive justice warranted the grant of the orders. The applicant was amenable to withdrawal of the related applications seeking to strike out the appeal, provided validation was granted.
- Respondent
- Initially, both respondents opposed the validation and sought to strike out the appeal through their respective applications. Upon guidance from the court and after consulting their clients, both respondents agreed by consent to withdraw their applications and accept the validation, with each party bearing its own costs.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules S.I. 141-2; Judicature (Court of Appeal) Rules Directions S.I. 13-10
Courts should dispense substantive justice and may extend or validate procedural timelines where parties consent and no prejudice is occasioned.
- 02
General principles of civil procedure
Withdrawal of applications by consent is permissible and costs may be ordered as agreed by parties or at the court's discretion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court, guided by the principle of dispensing substantive justice and the consent of all parties, allowed the validation of the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal in Election Petition Application No. 26 of 2022. The related applications seeking to strike out the appeal (No. 25 of 2022 and No. 29 of 2022) were withdrawn by consent, and the Court ordered that each party bear its own costs. The decision was based on the parties' agreement and the Court's responsibility to facilitate the just, expeditious, and efficient resolution of election petition matters.
Obiter and limits
- The Court emphasized the role of advocates in balancing their duty to clients with their responsibility to the Court in dispensing substantive justice.
- Professional courtesies among lawyers can facilitate efficient case management and resolution.
Court disposition
application allowed by consent; related applications withdrawn; each party to bear own costs
- Validation of the Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal in Election Petition Application No. 26 of 2022 is granted.
- Applications No. 25 of 2022 and No. 29 of 2022 are withdrawn by consent of the parties.
- Each party shall bear its own costs.
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal 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.
Court of Appeal of Uganda
Judgment
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF UGANDA (COA)AT KAMPAI. A
ELECTION PETITION APPLICATION NUMBER 0026 OF 2022
MUJUNGU JENNIFER ( ========= <sup>=</sup>APPLICANT
VS
1. TUMWINE ANNE MARY 2. ELECTORALCOMMISSION
=RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON. MR. JUSTICE GEOFFREY KIRYABWIRE, JA
HON. MR. JUSTICE MUSOTA STEPHEN, JA
HON. MR. JUSTICE GASHIRABAKE CHRISTOPHER, JA
RULING OF COURT
This is an Application by way of Notice of Motion under Rules 19 & 35 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Sl L4L-2, Rules 2(2) & 5 of the Judicature (court of Appeal) Rules Directions s.l 13-10 seeking for orders that time within which to file and serve Memorandum of Appeal and the Record of Appeal in Election Petition Appeal No.77 of 2O2t be extended and/or to validate the Memorandum of Appeal and the Record of Appeal in this Appeal and the costs of Application.
When this Application was called up for hearing, Counsel Jude Byamukama appeared for the Applicant, Mr. Thomas ochaya & Esawa lsingoma represented the 1't Respondent and Mr. Erick Sabit for the 2nd Respondent.
court found that there also existed another Application No. 25 of 2022, which was filed on 15th February, 2022by the 1't Respondent seeking to strike out the Appeal
and also Application No. 29 of 2022 filed by the 2nd Respondent (Electoral Commission) on 17th Februa ry,2022 also seeking the same Orders on substantially the sa me grou nds.
For purposes of case management, court inquired whether lawyers could extend professionalcourtesies across the bar and accept the validation in this Application and withdraw Applications No. 25 of 2022 and No. 29 of 2022 and deal with the Appeal. Mr. Thomas Ochaya for the Applicant in Application No. 25 of <sup>2022</sup> informed Court that he had no instructions to withdraw the Application. For such reasons the hearing was stood over for the lawyers to consult their respective clients.
When court resumed, Mr. Thomas Ochaya informed Court that he had now received instructions to withdraw the Application and Mr' Eric Sabit for the Application No. 29 of 2022 also conceded to withdraw the Application.
Consideration of court.
After guidance by Court on the role of Advocates to their clients and responsibility to the Court to dispense substantive justice the parties by consent agreed to withdraw the Applications.
This Court by reason of the consent of the parties now allows the validation in Election Petition Application No. 26 of 2022, and the withdrawal of Applications No.25 of 2022 and No.29 of 2022 by reason of the said concessions each party bearing their own costs.
Dated at Kampala this l--. tr day of t< 4t. <sup>H</sup> 2022.
,
HON. MR. JUSTICE GEOFFREY KIRYABWIRE
JUSTICE OF APPEAT
HON. MR. JUSTICE MUSOTA STEPHEN
JUSTICE OF APPEAT
HON. MR. JUSTICE GASHIRABAKE CHRISTOPHER
JUSTICE OF APPEAL
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.