Waligo v Ssekindi Aisha and Another
Waligo v Ssekindi Aisha and Another (Election Petition Appeal 29 of 2016) [2017] UGCA 140 (3 April 2017)
The Court of Appeal found that the trial Judge erred by applying a higher standard of proof than required by law, referencing presidential election standards instead of the balance of probabilities mandated for parliamentary petitions. However, upon re-evaluating the evidence under the correct standard, the Court held that the appellant failed to prove her case. The discrepancies in the 1st respondent's academic documents were satisfactorily explained, and the lack of a Primary Leaving Certificate did not invalidate subsequent qualifications due to the law in force at the relevant time. The C…
Source excerpt
- Parliamentary Election Qualification
- Academic Equivalence
- Burden Of Proof
- Electoral Offences Bribery
- Standard Of Proof
- Evidence Evaluation