Wakilii

Serunjogi v Lule (Election Petition Appeal No.15 2006)

Court of Appeal · [2007] UGCA 70 · 2007 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from High Court decision annulling the appellant's election as Member of Parliament for lack of requisite academic qualifications
Decision
Appeal dismissed; annulment of appellant's election upheld; certificate for four advocates set aside

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's challenge to the annulment of his parliamentary election. It held that the standard of proof in parliamentary election petitions under section 61(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act is on a balance of probabilities, and that the respondent had proved the appellant did not own the academic certificates relied upon for nomination, given discrepancies in names, the appellant's declared age making him about 12 when he claimed to have sat 'O' levels, and contradictory explanations for changes of name. The appellant lacked the requisite qualifications. However, the trial judge's certificate for four advocates was set aside as unjustified and unprecedented.

Facts

Following the 23 February 2006 parliamentary elections, the appellant was declared winner of the Kalungu East Constituency seat over the respondent. The respondent petitioned the High Court, alleging the appellant was unqualified to stand as he lacked the requisite academic qualifications. At nomination, the appellant presented an East African Certificate of Education ('O' Level) and a Uganda Advanced Certificate of Education ('A' Level). The Returning Officer noticed discrepancies between names on the certificates, nomination form and registration documents, but nominated him after he swore an affidavit explaining the letters 'SMJ'. The appellant's voter registration recorded his date of birth as 6 October 1965, which would make him about 12 when he claimed to have sat 'O' levels in 1978. The 'A' Level certificate bore names differing from his official documents. The grave epitaph of the appellant's father was renovated after the petition to add a name. The High Court found the certificates did not belong to him, annulled his election and ordered fresh elections.

Issues

  1. Whether the 'O' Level and 'A' Level academic certificates exhibited as the basis of the appellant's nomination and election belonged to the appellant.
  2. Whether the trial judge properly evaluated the evidence led before the court.
  3. Whether the award of costs with a certificate for four counsel was erroneous.
  4. What consequential remedies were available.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment and orders of the lower court upheld except the order of certificate for four advocates.
  • Order of certificate for four advocates set aside.
  • Respondent to have the costs of the appeal and those of the court below.

Key headnotes

Electoral Law — Parliamentary Election Petitions — Standard and Burden of Proof
In a parliamentary election petition, the grounds for setting aside an election under section 61 of the Parliamentary Elections Act must be proved to the satisfaction of the court on a balance of probabilities, and the burden of proof lies on the petitioner.
Electoral Law — Qualifications for Election — Academic Certificates and Ownership
Where a candidate's qualification depends on academic certificates, the court may find on a balance of probabilities that the certificates do not belong to the candidate having regard to discrepancies in names, the candidate's declared age, and contradictory explanations, thereby establishing the candidate lacked the requisite academic qualifications.
Evidence — Appellate Review — Evaluation of Evidence by Trial Court
While an appellate court has power to re-evaluate the evidence on record, this power must be exercised with caution where findings rest on the credibility and demeanour of witnesses seen and cross-examined by the trial court; a trial judge who considers competing versions cannot be faulted for preferring one over the other.
Statutory Interpretation — Change of Name — Births and Deaths Registration Act
An adult wishing to change their name must comply with section 12 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act by publishing notice in the Gazette and applying to the registrar; an attempt to change a name merely by affidavit is of no legal consequence.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Certificate for More Than One Advocate
A certificate for more than one advocate under rule 41 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules is discretionary and ordinarily limited to two counsel; a certificate for four advocates given without reasons and unsupported by any prayer on record is unjustified and may be set aside on appeal.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Appellate Interference with Discretion
An appellate court will not interfere with a trial court's discretion as to costs unless it is shown the discretion was exercised unjudicially, on wrong principles, or where reasons given do not constitute good cause, or no reasons are given and the order is wrong.

Legislation cited (13)

  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.61(1)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.61(3)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.63(4)
  • Presidential Elections Act s.59(6)
  • Evidence Act s.100
  • Evidence Act s.110
  • Civil Procedure Act s.27
  • Births and Deaths Registration Act (Cap. 309) s.12
  • Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules r.15
  • Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules r.27
  • Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules r.41
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.30
  • Court of Appeal Rules r.86(1)

Cases cited (7)

  • Besigye v Museveni (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Administrator General v Bwanika (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 2003)
  • Peter v Sunday Post Ltd [1958] EA 424
  • Viram v Roussos (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2006)
  • Watt (or Thomas) v Thomas [1947] AC 484
  • Electoral Commission v Komuhangi (Election Petition Appeal No. 19 of 2002)
  • In Katwiremos (sic) case Election Petition of1996
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.