Uganda Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Uganda Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 2 court collections
Last checked: 18 Sep 2026, 04:26 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

Uganda decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

2 Mar 2012

Election Petitions [2012] UGHCEP 298

Kikongo v Electrol commissionand anor

Kikongo v Electrol commissionand anor (Election Appeal No. 75 of 2011) [2012] UGHCEP 298 (2 March 2012)

Court: Election Petitions of Uganda
Case number: Election Appeal No. 75 of 2011

The High Court held that the provision of S.6 of the Oaths Act is directory rather than mandatory, relying on precedent that technical defects in affidavits, such as undated jurats, do not vitiate the affidavit and can be cured by dating in court or re-swearing. The court found that the trial magistrate erred by dismissing the entire petition when the proper remedy was to expunge the defective affidavits, as the respondents only prayed for striking out the affidavits, not dismissal. The affidavits on the court record were dated, and the official court record is the reference point for proceed…

Source excerpt

Affidavit Requirements
Oaths Act Interpretation
Mandatory Vs Directory Statutes
Forgery Allegations
Procedural Irregularities

Read case analysis

2 Mar 2012

Election Petitions [2012] UGHC 398

Kikongo v Electoral Commission & Anor

Kikongo v Electoral Commission & Anor (Election Appeal No. 75 of 2011) [2012] UGHC 398 (2 March 2012)

Court: High Court of Uganda
Case number: Election Appeal No. 75 of 2011
Judge: Yasin, J

The High Court held that the use of 'shall' in Section 6 of the Oaths Act is directory rather than mandatory, in line with appellate authority and constitutional principles favoring substantive justice over technicalities. The presence of undated affidavits served on parties did not vitiate the petition, as the affidavits on the court record were properly dated and sworn. The trial magistrate erred by dismissing the entire petition instead of simply expunging the offending affidavits, as requested by the respondents. The correct procedure would have been to strike out only the defective affid…