Uganda Case Law

Gaddaffi v Sekabira and another

Gaddaffi v Sekabira and another (Election Appeal No. 56 of 2021) [2022] UGCA 139 (6 May 2022)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Election Appeal No. 56 of 2021

Judge

Madrama, JA, Egonda-Ntende, JA, Luswata, JA

The Court of Appeal held that the High Court does not have original jurisdiction to hear and determine complaints regarding the nomination of candidates; such complaints must first be lodged with the Electoral Commission, and only appeals from the Commission's decisions may be heard by the High Court. The appellant failed to exercise due diligence by not inspecting nomination papers prior to the election and did not raise his complaints at the appropriate time. The trial judge was correct to expunge evidence obtained through falsehoods and procedural defects, as the appellant misrepresented h…

Source excerpt

• Nomination Disputes
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Bribery In Elections
• Burden Of Proof
• Registered Voter Status

Nakwang v Akello

Nakwang v Akello (Election Petition Appeal 80 of 2016) [2017] UGCA 139 (15 June 2017)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Election Petition Appeal 80 of 2016

Judge

Buteera, JA, Kakuru, JA, Owiny-Dollo, JA

The Court of Appeal upheld the annulment of Christine Nakwang Tubo’s election, finding that late affidavits should have been excluded but the error did not affect the outcome.

• Parliamentary Elections
• Electoral Offences
• Bribery In Elections
• Fair Hearing
• Burden Of Proof
• Election-petitions

Kintu Alex Brandon v Electoral Commission and Walyomu Moses

Kintu Alex Brandon v Electoral Commission and Walyomu Moses (Election Petition Appeal 64 of 2016) [2017] UGCA 134 (9 March 2017)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Election Petition Appeal 64 of 2016

Judge

Egonda-Ntende, JA, Mugamba, JA, Owiny-Dollo, JA

The Court of Appeal nullified a parliamentary election after finding bribery at a mosque event and criticising witness intimidation linked to recanting affidavits.

• Bribery In Elections
• Witness Intimidation
• Evaluation Of Evidence
• Professional Conduct Of Advocates
• Election-petitions
• Election-bribery

Iriama v Anyakun and Anor (HCT-00-CV-EP 4 of 2016)

Iriama v Anyakun and Anor (HCT-00-CV-EP 4 of 2016) [2016] UGHCEP 32 (25 July 2016)

Court

Election Petitions of Uganda

Case number

HCT-00-CV-EP 4 of 2016

The court found that the Petitioner failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the 2nd Respondent’s non-compliance with electoral laws or the alleged illegal practices by the 1st Respondent affected the election results in a substantial manner. The evidence presented regarding bribery, ballot stuffing, and irregularities in the signing of declaration forms was either uncorroborated, contradicted, or insufficient to meet the legal threshold. The court noted that most declaration forms were signed without adverse comments, and the alleged excess ballot papers did not demonstrably bene…

Source excerpt

• Parliamentary Elections
• Electoral Offences
• Bribery In Elections
• Burden Of Proof
• Declaration Of Results Forms

Kyotasobora v Kabakumba Masiko and Another

Kyotasobora v Kabakumba Masiko and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 54 of 2011) [2012] UGCA 63 (23 November 2012)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Election Petition Appeal No. 54 of 2011

Judge

Kasule, JA, Nshimye, JA, Arach-Amoko JA

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the first respondent committed bribery or other electoral offences, or that there was substantial non-compliance with electoral laws affecting the election result. The evidence presented by the appellant's witnesses was found unreliable, lacking in specificity, or hearsay, and did not establish that the first respondent or her agents engaged in bribery or intimidation. The trial judge was correct in rejecting evidence regarding vehicle registration and alleged intimidation by army soldiers, as it…

Source excerpt

• Bribery In Elections
• Non Compliance With Electoral Laws
• Burden And Standard Of Proof
• Use Of Government Resources
• Intimidation Of Electorate

Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty Bakireke

Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty Bakireke (Election Petition Appeal No. 04 of 2009) [2010] UGSC 44 (31 March 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Election Petition Appeal No. 04 of 2009

Judge

Tsekooko, JSC, Katureebe, JSC, Okello, JSC, Tumwesigye, JSC, Kisaakye, JSC

The Supreme Court held that although the respondent's supporting affidavit lacked detailed particulars of bribery, the appellant had fair notice of the case through the petition and supporting affidavits, and actively responded by filing rebuttal affidavits and participating in cross-examination. The failure to include particulars in the respondent's own affidavit was an irregularity that did not prejudice the appellant or deny him a fair hearing. The appellant did not seek further particulars or extension of time, nor did he object to the competence of the petition during trial. The Court em…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Pleadings And Particulars
• Bribery In Elections
• Appellate Review
• Evidence Evaluation

Mbayo Vs Electoral Commission & Anor

Mbayo Vs Electoral Commission & Anor (Election Appeal No. 7 of 2006) [2006] UGCA 49 (8 December 2006)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Election Appeal No. 7 of 2006

The Court of Appeal of Uganda dismissed an election appeal, holding that bribery was not proved to the court’s satisfaction and the election result stood.

• Bribery In Elections
• Proof Of Bribery
• Affidavit Rejection
• Amendment Of Petition
• Election-petitions
• Electoral-bribery

Mathina Bwambale v Electoral Commission and Another (HCT-01-CV-EP-0007/2006) (HCT-01-CV-EP-0007/2006)

Mathina Bwambale v Electoral Commission and Another (HCT-01-CV-EP-0007/2006) (HCT-01-CV-EP-0007/2006) [2006] UGHC 39 (15 September 2006)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

HCT-01-CV-EP-0007/2006

The court found that the petitioner failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, any substantial non-compliance with the Parliamentary Elections Act that affected the results of the election. Allegations of voting after hours, improper assistance of voters, intimidation, and presence of armed persons were either rebutted by credible evidence or permitted by law. The only proven irregularity was the disruption of the petitioner's campaign rally, which violated principles of freedom and fairness, but was not shown to have substantially affected the election outcome. The court further held th…

Source excerpt

• Parliamentary Elections Act Compliance
• Electoral Malpractice
• Campaign Disruption
• Service Of Process
• Bribery In Elections