Uganda Case Law

Sematiko v Nsegumire and Another

Sematiko v Nsegumire and Another (Election Petition Appeal 67 of 2021) [2022] UGCA 322 (23 May 2022)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Election Petition Appeal 67 of 2021

Judge

Kiryabwire, JA, Musota, JA, Gashirabake, JA

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish the offences of bribery and defamation under the Parliamentary Elections Act. The evidence presented was insufficient, lacking in corroboration, and failed to prove essential elements such as agency, identity of recipients as voters, and the intention to induce votes. On defamation, the appellant did not plead or prove the alleged defamatory statements verbatim, nor did the evidence demonstrate that the statements attacked the appellant's personal character or affected his standing among…

Source excerpt

• Parliamentary Elections
• Electoral Offences
• Bribery Of Voters
• Defamation In Elections
• Burden Of Proof
• Standard Of Proof

Mawanda V Electoral Commission & Anor

Mawanda V Electoral Commission & Anor (Election Appeal No. 98 of 2016) [2017] UGCA 32 (3 October 2017)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Election Appeal No. 98 of 2016

Judge

Owiny-Dollo, DCJ, Egonda-Ntende, JA, Buteera, JA

The Court of Appeal found that, while most allegations of non-compliance with electoral laws by the Electoral Commission were unsubstantiated, the Commission did breach its statutory duty under section 28A of the Parliamentary Elections Act by failing to provide serial numbers of ballot papers and seals. However, this non-compliance did not affect the election results in a substantial manner. Regarding the 2nd respondent, the court determined that the evidence established he caused the distribution of defamatory flyers containing false statements about the appellant, contrary to section 73 of…

Source excerpt

• Parliamentary Elections
• Electoral Offences
• Bribery Of Voters
• False Statements Against Candidates
• Evidence Admissibility
• Pleadings And Procedure

Kabakumba v Kiiza and Anor

Kabakumba v Kiiza and Anor (Election Petition No. 2 of 2016) [2016] UGHCEP 60 (20 July 2016)

Court

Election Petitions of Uganda

Case number

Election Petition No. 2 of 2016

The High Court at Masindi nullified the Masindi Municipality parliamentary election after finding proved bribery by the winning candidate’s side.

• Parliamentary Elections Act
• Electoral Offences
• Bribery Of Voters
• Agency In Election Petitions
• Standard Of Proof
• Burden Of Proof

Spenser George William v Abas Agaba Mugisa and Anor

Spenser George William v Abas Agaba Mugisa and Anor (Election Petition No. 6 of 2016) [2016] UGHCEP 38 (4 June 2016)

Court

Election Petitions of Uganda

Case number

Election Petition No. 6 of 2016

The court found that the petition was fatally defective due to lack of specific pleadings and credible affidavit evidence supporting the alleged malpractices and election offences. The applicant failed to prove, to the required standard, that the 1st respondent or his agents committed bribery, intimidation, or other electoral offences with the respondent's knowledge, consent, or approval. The evidence presented was largely generalized, hearsay, or unsupported by particulars such as names, dates, or documentary proof. The court further held that the applicant did not establish that any noncomp…

Source excerpt

• Parliamentary Elections
• Electoral Malpractice
• Burden Of Proof
• Bribery Of Voters
• Intimidation
• Noncompliance With Electoral Laws

Mukasa Anthony Harris v Dr. Bayiga Michael Philip Lulume

Mukasa Anthony Harris v Dr. Bayiga Michael Philip Lulume (Election Petition Appeal 18 of 2007) [2008] UGSC 6 (6 March 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Uganda

Case number

Election Petition Appeal 18 of 2007

Judge

Odoki, CJ, J.W.N.Tsekooko, JSC, Mulenga, JSC, Kanyeihamba, JSC, Katureebe, JSC

The Supreme Court held that the requirement to serve notice of presentation of the petition is directory rather than mandatory, as neither the Act nor the Rules prescribe a sanction for non-compliance and no prejudice was shown. The appellant participated fully in the proceedings and filed an answer to the petition, indicating he was aware of its existence. On the substantive grounds, the Court found that both the trial judge and the Court of Appeal properly evaluated the evidence and applied the correct statutory standard of proof, which is the balance of probabilities. The findings of bribe…

Source excerpt

• Parliamentary Elections
• Electoral Offences
• Bribery Of Voters
• Burden Of Proof
• Standard Of Proof
• Appellate Review