Fred Badda & Another v Prof. Mayanda Mutebi (Election Petition Appeal 21 of 2007)

Supreme Court · [2008] UGSC 18 · 2008 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second election petition appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal

Decision

Appeal dismissed; concurrent findings of bribery by the High Court and Court of Appeal upheld

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this 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 Supreme Court dismissed the second election appeal, holding there was no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal that the first appellant committed bribery. The gift of a cow to the runner-up team during the gazetted campaign period — after the team threatened not to vote for the appellant, who had shifted the tournament dates to coincide with campaigning — was clearly intended to influence voters and amounted to a bribe under the Parliamentary Elections Act. As a second appellate court it would not disturb concurrent, properly-reasoned findings of fact. The cross-appeal/counterclaim was also dismissed.

Facts

Parliamentary elections for the Bujumba County seat, Kalangala District, were held on 23 February 2006. The Electoral Commission declared the first appellant, Fred Badda, the winner with 3,316 votes against the respondent, Prof. Muyanda Mutebi, with 3,292 votes. The dispute centred on the annual Badda cup football tournament, which the first appellant sponsored. The tournament dates were shifted to coincide with the gazetted campaign period. After the runner-up team (Kagoya FC) failed to receive the agreed goat and threatened not to vote for the first appellant, he promised them first a cheque of Shs. 100,000, which they declined, and then a cow, which was duly delivered during the campaign period. The trial court and Court of Appeal found, on the affidavit evidence, that the gift of the cow was calculated to influence the team members to vote for the first appellant.

Issues

Whether the first appellant committed the electoral offence of bribery within the meaning of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
Whether the Court of Appeal failed to properly re-evaluate the evidence regarding the alleged bribery and electoral malpractices.
Whether a second appellate court should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Orders

Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent here and in the two courts below.
Counterclaim (cross-appeal) dismissed with no order as to costs.
One counsel certified.

Key headnotes

Electoral Law — Bribery — Gift to voters during campaign period intended to influence votes

A gift, such as a cow, given to voters during the gazetted campaign period in circumstances calculated to influence them to vote for a candidate constitutes bribery within the meaning of the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Evidence — Second appeal — Concurrent findings of fact by trial court and first appellate court

A second appellate court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the first appellate court where those findings are supported by the evidence and disclose no error.

Civil Procedure — Memorandum of appeal — Compliance with rules of court — Ground not raised below

A memorandum of appeal must set forth the grounds of objection concisely and without argument or narrative under Rule 82, and a ground complaining of a matter that was not brought before the lower court for determination is improperly raised.

Legislation cited (4)

Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 (No. 17 of 2005)
Rules of the Supreme Court r.82
Rules of the Supreme Court r.94
Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.3

Cases cited (9)

Winfred Kamuhangi v Babihuga J. Winnie (Election Petition Appeal No. 9 of 2002)
Amama Mbabazi v Musinguzi Garuga (Election Petition Appeal No. 12 of 2002)
Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 8 of 1998)
Muddumba v. Wilberforce Kalisa, (C.A) No. 9 of 2002 (unreported)
Wasike Stephen Mugeni v Amori Siryoyi (Election Petition Appeal No. 5 of 2007)
Paul Kawanga Ssemwogerere & Zachary Olum v. Attorney General
Kiiza Besigye v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and Another (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
Kirunda Kivenjinja Ali v Katuntu Abdu and Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 24 of 2006)
Mukasa Anthony Harris v Dr. Bayiga Michael Lulume (Election Petition Appeal No. 14 of 2006)

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.