Wakilii

Tamale Julius Kironde v Ssenkubuge Isaac & Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 75 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2017] UGCA 117 · 2017 Appeal Allowed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from High Court dismissal of an election petition on preliminary objections
Decision
Order dismissing the petition set aside; matter remitted for full trial before another High Court Judge

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

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 allowed the appeal. It held that uncertified Declaration of Results Forms issued to a candidate's agents should have been admitted as evidence in the exceptional circumstance where the petitioner alleged the Electoral Commission itself falsified the results, since requiring certification from the accused body would defeat logic. Additional affidavits filed without leave before the scheduling conference caused no injustice and should not have been struck out. Defects in the jurat under the Oaths Act and Illiterates Protection Act were insubstantial deviations curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution. The trial Judge erred in dismissing the petition on preliminary points without scrutinising the merits.

Facts

The appellant, the first respondent and four others contested the election for Chairperson of Bweyogerere Division, Kira Municipality, held on 9 March 2016. The Electoral Commission declared the first respondent the winner with 2,188 votes against the appellant's 1,873 votes. The appellant petitioned the High Court alleging the Commission failed to conduct elections in accordance with the law. He complained that duly signed Declaration of Results Forms issued to his agents at eight polling stations were later altered to inflate the first respondent's votes and that his agents' signatures were forged. He attached two sets of DR Forms: uncertified ones from his agents and certified copies from the Commission. The respondents raised preliminary objections that certain affidavits were filed out of time without leave, some annexures were uncertified, and some affidavits did not comply with the Illiterates Protection Act and Oaths Act. The trial Judge upheld the objections, expunged six affidavits and the uncertified DR Forms, and dismissed the petition for lack of evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether uncertified Declaration of Results Forms issued to a candidate's agents are admissible in evidence where the candidate alleges falsification of results by the Electoral Commission.
  2. Whether additional affidavits in support of an election petition filed without leave of court, before the scheduling conference, should be struck out.
  3. Whether affidavits alleged to be defective for non-compliance with the Illiterates Protection Act and the Oaths Act should be expunged.
  4. Whether the trial Judge erred in dismissing the petition on preliminary points of law without scrutinising the evidence on its merits.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Order dismissing the appellant's petition set aside.
  • Full trial of the petition ordered before another Judge of the High Court.
  • Costs of the appeal and of the proceedings in the court below awarded to the appellant.

Key headnotes

Evidence — Public Documents — Admissibility of Uncertified Declaration of Results Forms in Election Petitions
Although section 76 of the Evidence Act requires proof of public documents by production of the original or certified copies, uncertified Declaration of Results Forms may be admitted in evidence in the exceptional circumstance where a petitioner alleges the Electoral Commission itself falsified the results, as it would defeat logic to require the petitioner to obtain certified copies from the very body accused of alteration.
Electoral Law — Preliminary Objections — Dismissal of Petition Without Scrutiny of Evidence
Where an election petition raises serious allegations of falsification going to the root of the vote tallying process, the trial court should determine the matter on its merits after scrutinising the documentary evidence rather than dismissing the petition at a preliminary stage as unsupported.
Civil Procedure — Election Petitions — Filing of Additional Affidavits Without Leave Before Scheduling Conference
Additional affidavits in support of an election petition filed before the scheduling conference is conducted are generally acceptable without leave of court, as no prejudice is occasioned to respondents who still have opportunity to respond; leave is only required where additional affidavits are filed after the scheduling conference.
Statutory Interpretation — Affidavits — Defects in Jurat Under Oaths Act and Illiterates Protection Act
A deviation from the prescribed form of jurat under the Oaths Act is an insubstantial defect curable under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution and section 43 of the Interpretation Act where the substance of certification is achieved, and a certification compliant with sections 2 and 3 of the Illiterates Protection Act adequately serves the protective purpose of the law.
Electoral Law — Affidavits — Liberal Approach in Election Matters
Courts adopt a liberal approach to affidavits in election matters given the great public interest, short statutory timeframes, and the need to gather evidence from a wide spectrum of people, recognising that it is sometimes not practically possible to file all supporting affidavits simultaneously with the petition.

Legislation cited (15)

  • Evidence Act s.73
  • Evidence Act s.76
  • Evidence Act s.64(1)(a)
  • Evidence Act s.65
  • Illiterates Protection Act Cap. 78 s.2
  • Illiterates Protection Act Cap. 78 s.3
  • Oaths Act Cap. 19 s.1
  • Local Governments Act s.136(c)
  • Local Governments Act s.138(4)
  • Local Governments Act s.142(2)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act s.50
  • Parliamentary Elections Act s.51
  • Interpretation Act s.43
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 126(2)(e)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 61

Cases cited (8)

  • Bank of Uganda v Banco Arabe Espanol (Civil Application No. 23 of 1999)
  • John Baptist Kakooza v Electoral Commission & Yiga Anthony (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2007)
  • Samuel Mayanja vs Uganda Revenue Authority, HCT-00-CC-MC-0017-2005
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Sam K. Njuba & Anor (Election Petition Appeal No. 26 of 2007)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Hon. Lillian Nakatte Segujja and anor vs Nabukenya Brenda
  • Saggu v Roadmaster Cycles (U) Ltd [2002] 1 EA 258
  • Nanjibhai Prabhudas & Co. Ltd v Standard Bank Ltd [1968] EA 670
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.