Electoral Commission and Another v Hon. Lanyero Molly (22 of 2022; 33 of 2022; 44 of 2022; Consolidated Election Petition)

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Holding

The Court of Appeal held that an intending appellant in an election petition appeal bears a heavier duty to be vigilant and to take all essential steps within the strict statutory time limits, given the public importance and need for expeditious determination of election disputes. Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution cannot be used as a shield for non-compliance with election procedural rules. The applicant served the Notice of Appeal, filed the Memorandum and Record of Appeal out of time and showed no sufficient cause or exceptional circumstances; counsel's dilatory conduct was no excuse. The application for validation/enlargement of time was dismissed, the strike-out applications allowed, and the appeal struck out as incurably defective, each party bearing its own costs.

Facts

Hon. Molly Lanyero, Acora Nancy and four others contested the Woman Member of Parliament seat for Lamwo District in elections held on 14 January 2021. The Electoral Commission declared Acora Nancy the winner with 17,064 votes against Lanyero's 12,862. Lanyero petitioned the High Court, which dismissed the petition with costs on 20 August 2021. On the same day she filed a notice of appeal and a letter requesting proceedings, but served it on the respondents on 30 September 2021, three days late. She filed the Memorandum of Appeal on 28 September 2021, one day late, and the Record of Appeal on 23 November 2021, twenty-five days late. The Electoral Commission filed an application to strike out the notice of appeal, and Acora Nancy filed an application to strike out the petition appeal. Lanyero filed an application to validate and/or enlarge time. The applicant attributed the delays to a mistake by counsel and clerking staff.

Issues

1. Whether the late filing and service of the Notice of Appeal, Memorandum of Appeal and Record of Appeal in an election petition appeal should be validated and time enlarged.
2. Whether the applicant showed sufficient cause or exceptional circumstances to justify extension of time.
3. Whether the election petition appeal should be struck out for failure to take essential steps within the prescribed time.

Orders

• The application to validate the appeal (Miscellaneous Application No. 44 of 2022) is dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.
• Miscellaneous Application No. 22 of 2022 and Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 2022 are allowed with each party bearing its own costs.
• Election Petition Appeal No. 026 of 2021 is struck out for being incurably defective for having been filed out of time, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)(e)
• Parliamentary Elections Act s.66(2)
• Parliamentary Elements (Interim Provisions)(Election Petition) Rules SI 141-2 r.29
• Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions)(Election Petition) Rules SI 141-2 r.30
• Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules r.31
• Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules r.33
• Court of Appeal Rules r.2(2)
• Court of Appeal Rules r.43(1) and (2)
• Court of Appeal Rules r.78(1)
• Court of Appeal Rules r.82

Cases cited (6)

• Executrix of the Estate of Christine Mary Namatovu Tebajjukira v Noel Grace Shalita (Civil Application No. 3 of 1988)
• Kasibante Moses v Electoral Commission (Election Petition Application No. 7 of 2012)
• Ibrahim Abiriga v Musema Mudathir Bruce (Election Petition Application No. 24 of 2016)
• Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 52 of 1995)
• George Omara v Charles Andiro Abacacon (Election Petition Appeal No. 106 of 2016)
• David Kabunga v Leonia Karyeija and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 54 of 1998)