Wakilii

Sematiko Gordon Katende v Nsegumire Muhammad Kibedi and Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal 67 of 2021)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 322 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Final appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court decision dismissing a parliamentary election petition
Decision
Appeal dismissed; election of the 1st Respondent as Member of Parliament for Mityana North Constituency confirmed

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, sitting as the final appellate court in parliamentary election matters, dismissed the appeal. It held that to prove the illegal practice of bribery under section 68(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, the petitioner must establish by cogent evidence on a balance of probabilities that a gift was given to a registered voter, by the candidate or a proven agent, with intent to induce a vote. On defamation under section 73(1), the allegedly false statements must be pleaded verbatim in the petition itself and accurately translated. The petitioner's affidavit evidence failed both standards, identifying neither voters nor agency, and not quoting words verbatim. The trial Judge's findings were upheld.

Facts

The Appellant and the 1st Respondent were nominated candidates for Member of Parliament of Mityana North Constituency in the election held on 14 January 2021. On 15 January 2021 the Electoral Commission (2nd Respondent) returned and declared the 1st Respondent as the duly elected Member of Parliament and gazetted him accordingly. The Appellant challenged the result by Election Petition No. 005 of 2021 in the High Court at Mubende, alleging that the 1st Respondent committed the illegal practice of bribery and made false defamatory statements about the Appellant's character, and that the election was not conducted in accordance with electoral law. The 1st and 2nd Respondents denied the allegations and contended the election was free and fair. The trial Judge dismissed the petition, finding the allegations of bribery and defamation unsupported by cogent evidence. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Issues

  1. Whether the trial Judge erred in finding that the Petitioner failed to prove the offence of bribery to the satisfaction of the court.
  2. Whether the trial Judge erred in finding that there was no evidence of acts of defamation because witnesses did not state the exact words verbatim.
  3. Whether the trial Judge erred in finding the video and its translation unclear as to defamatory statements concerning the Petitioner's character.
  4. Whether the trial Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence on bribery and defamation.

Orders

  • This appeal is, on all grounds laid out in the Memorandum of Appeal, dismissed.
  • The Judgment, Decree and orders entered against the Appellant by the learned trial Judge are confirmed and upheld.
  • The 1st Respondent is confirmed as the duly elected Member of Parliament for Mityana North Constituency.
  • The costs of this appeal are awarded to the 1st and 2nd Respondents.

Key headnotes

Electoral Law — Bribery — Ingredients under section 68(1) Parliamentary Elections Act
The illegal practice of bribery in an election petition requires proof of three ingredients: that a gift was given to a voter; that the gift was given by the candidate or their agent; and that the gift was given with the intention of inducing the recipient to vote in a particular way.
Electoral Law — Bribery — Standard and quality of proof required
Bribery as an election offence must be established by clear, unequivocal and cogent evidence on a balance of probabilities to the satisfaction of the court; mere suspicion, uncorroborated allegations, and admissions of persons claiming to have received bribes are insufficient, and proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required.
Electoral Law — Bribery — Proof of agency and voter status of recipients
Where the petitioner fails to prove that the giver of an alleged bribe was the candidate's agent, or that the alleged recipients were registered voters, the court must dismiss the bribery claim, as both agency and the voter status of recipients are essential elements.
Electoral Law — Defamation / False statements — Requirement to plead words verbatim
To establish the offence of making false statements under section 73(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, the words complained of must be pleaded verbatim in the petition itself, not merely in supporting affidavits; failure to quote the exact words is fatal because the effect of words that are not known or ascertained cannot be proved.
Electoral Law — Defamation / False statements — Translation of statements not in language of court
Where defamatory statements were made in a language other than English, a complete and accurate translation is required; a loose translation is not considered a valid translation for the purposes of proving false or defamatory statements in election petitions.
Evidence — Election petitions — Scrutiny of partisan evidence and corroboration
In election petitions the court must subject each allegation to serious scrutiny, alive to the risk that partisan witnesses may lie; no particular number of witnesses is required but the available evidence must be corroborated by the general body of evidence, and where the petitioner's witnesses contradict each other none can be believed.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Duty of last appellate court to reappraise evidence
Under Rule 30(1) of the Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions, the Court of Appeal sitting as the final appellate court in parliamentary election matters must reappraise the evidence, subject it to fresh and exhaustive scrutiny, and reach its own conclusions, while giving due regard to the trial Judge's findings.

Legislation cited (8)

  • Parliamentary Elections Act s.66(3)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act s.68(1)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act s.73(1)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act s.61(1)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act s.61(3)
  • Judicature Act s.6
  • Judicature (Court of Appeal Rules) Directions Rule 30(1)
  • Electoral Commission Act

Cases cited (16)

  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Banco Arabe Espanol v Bank of Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
  • Father Nasensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Paul Mwiru v Igeme Nabeta and Others (Election Petition Appeal No. 6 of 2011)
  • Mukasa Harris v Dr Lulume Bayiga (supra)
  • Odo Tayebwa v Bassajjabalaba Nasser and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 13 of 2011)
  • Peter Mugema v Mudiobole Abed Nasser and Another (Election Appeal No. 30 of 2011)
  • Hellen Adoa and Electoral Commission v Alice Alaso (Election Appeal No. 54 of 2016)
  • Amoru and Electoral Commission v Okello John (Election Appeal No. 39 and 95 of 2016)
  • Herbert Tom Kinobere v Wairagala Godfrey Kamba (Election Petition Appeal No. 53 of 2016)
  • Ibaale Daniel Joseph v Katuntu Abdul and Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 41 of 2016)
  • Ocen Peter and Electoral Commission v Ebil Fred (Election Petition Appeal No. 83 of 2016)
  • Mulimba John v Onyango Gideon and Others (Election Petition Appeal No. 48 of 2016)
  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Okeno v Republic [1972] EA 32
  • Charles Bitwire v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 1985)
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.