Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Uganda decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Muwonge v Akol & 10 Others (Election Petition 3 of 2022) [2024] UGHCCD 154 (11 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed an election petition over Uganda’s EALA representatives, holding it was filed outside the mandatory 30-day statutory deadline.
Okiria v Zomu and Another (Mbale Election Petition No. 33 of 2021) [2021] UGHCEP 11 (9 September 2021)
The court held that Section 138(4) of the Local Government Act prescribes a strict and mandatory 14-day period for filing election petitions following the publication of results in the Gazette. The petition in question was filed one day outside this statutory period, rendering it time-barred and incompetent. The court lacks jurisdiction to extend or abridge this statutory period, as there is no provision in the Act granting such discretion. Arguments based on Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution and the Civil Procedure Rules were rejected, as limitation of time is a matter of substantive law…
Source excerpt
Ikiror Vs Orot (Election Petition Appeal No. 105 of 2016) [2019] UGCA 10 (1 March 2019)
The Court of Appeal held that a petition challenging the validity of an election of a Member of Parliament must be filed under Part X (Sections 60 to 67) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which prescribes strict timelines and procedural requirements, including filing within 30 days of the gazette and support by at least 500 registered voters. Section 86 of the Act, while operationalizing Article 86 of the Constitution, does not provide an alternative route for challenging election results outside these strict requirements. The appellant's petition, filed more than five months after the gaze…
Source excerpt
Odongo v Kasana and Anor (HCT-04-CV-MA 207 of 2009) [2010] UGHCEP 1 (15 June 2010)
The High Court declined to extend time to hear an election petition, holding that no special circumstances were shown and that the applicant had been dilatory.
