Uganda Case Law

Akurut Vs Emurot

Akurut Vs Emurot (Election Petition Appeal No. 40 of 2016) [2017] UGCA 17 (23 May 2017)

Court

Court of Appeal of Uganda

Case number

Election Petition Appeal No. 40 of 2016

The Court of Appeal found that the trial Judge erred in law by interpreting the Constitution, a function reserved for the Constitutional Court. The appellant, as a Commissioner of the Uganda Human Rights Commission, was not an employee required to resign 90 days prior to nomination under Article 80(4) and related statutory provisions. The distinction between members of constitutional commissions and employees was clear in both the Constitution and the Uganda Human Rights Commission Act. The trial Judge's nullification of the appellant's election was based on a misapplication of these provisio…

Source excerpt

• Nomination Requirements
• Public Officer Definition
• Constitutional Interpretation
• Service Of Process
• Election Nullification

Bamwesige Vs Attorney General & 4 Ors

Bamwesige Vs Attorney General & 4 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. HCT-12-CV-MA-0136 of 2014) [2016] UGHCCD 5 (8 January 2016)

Court

HC: Civil Division (Uganda)

Case number

Miscellaneous Application No. HCT-12-CV-MA-0136 of 2014

Judge

Byabakama, J

The High Court dismissed an application accusing the respondents of contempt, finding that they had taken steps to comply with prior orders and purge contempt.

• Contempt Of Court
• Enforcement Of Court Orders
• Election Nullification
• Purging Contempt
• Affidavit Validity
• Contempt-of-court

Okidi & 4 Ors v Odok W

Okidi & 4 Ors v Odok W (Election Petition No. 09 of 2011) [2011] UGHC 122 (22 August 2011)

Court

High Court of Uganda

Case number

Election Petition No. 09 of 2011

Judge

Aweri-Opio, J

The petitioners, as registered voters supported by more than the statutory minimum number of signatures, had locus standi to challenge the election. The affidavits supporting the petition were validly commissioned, as there was no evidence that the Commissioner for Oaths was acting as advocate for the petitioners or was interested in the matter. Notice of the petition was served within the statutory period, and any delay was attributable to court administration, not the petitioners. The central issue was the 1st Respondent's age at nomination. Documentary evidence and credible testimony from…

Source excerpt

• District Chairperson Qualification
• Age Limit For Elected Office
• Election Nullification
• Locus Standi
• Affidavit Validity
• Service Of Process