Wakilii

Badda an Another v Muyanda (Election Petition Appeal 21 of 2007)

Supreme Court · [2008] UGSC 26 · 2008 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second election petition appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed the appellant's appeal from the High Court at Masaka
Decision
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; concurrent findings of bribery against the appellant upheld

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 Supreme Court, sitting as a second appellate court, dismissed the appeal. It held there was no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal that the appellant committed bribery: the gift of a cow to a losing football team, after the team threatened not to vote for him and following the shifting of a tournament to coincide with the gazetted campaign period, was calculated to influence voters in his favour and amounted to bribery under the Parliamentary Elections Act 2005. The Court also dismissed the cross-appeal as having no substance, and criticised counsel's non-compliance with the rules governing the memorandum and record of appeal.

Facts

Parliamentary elections for the Bujumba County seat in Kalangala District were held on 23 February 2006. The Electoral Commission declared Fred Badda the winner with 3,316 votes, with Professor Muyanda Mutebi runner-up with 3,292 votes. Mutebi challenged the result in the High Court, alleging that Badda had engaged in bribery and electoral malpractice. The central allegation concerned a long-running annual football tournament sponsored by Badda whose dates were shifted to coincide with the gazetted campaign period. After the runner-up team was denied a goat and threatened not to vote for Badda, he promised them a cheque of shs. 100,000, which they declined, and then promised and delivered a cow. The lower courts found, on affidavit evidence, that the gift of the cow was calculated to influence the team to vote for Badda, and therefore amounted to bribery affecting the result.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant committed the electoral offence of bribery by donating a cow to a losing football team during the campaign period to influence voters.
  2. Whether the High Court and Court of Appeal failed to properly re-evaluate the evidence relating to the alleged bribery and electoral malpractices.
  3. Whether a ground of appeal could properly challenge the Court of Appeal on a matter that was not before it for determination.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent.
  • Cross-appeal (counter-claim) dismissed with no order as to costs.
  • Costs certified for one counsel.

Key headnotes

Electoral Law — Election Offences — Bribery — Gift Calculated to Influence Voters
A gift made by a candidate during the gazetted campaign period that is calculated to influence the recipients to vote for that candidate constitutes the electoral offence of bribery, even where it is given through a pre-existing event such as an annual sports tournament.
Evidence — Appellate Review — Concurrent Findings of Fact
A second appellate court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below unless there are good reasons to do so, such as a demonstrated failure properly to evaluate the evidence.
Civil Procedure — Memorandum and Record of Appeal — Compliance with Rules of Court
A memorandum of appeal must set forth concisely, and under distinct heads, the grounds of objection without argument or narrative, and the record of appeal should be confined to matters pertinently relevant to the issues framed for determination rather than reproducing everything that occurred in the proceedings below.
Civil Procedure — Grounds of Appeal — Matter Not Raised Before the Court Below
A ground of appeal cannot properly criticise the appellate court below on an issue that was not brought to that court for determination, since that court had no opportunity to adjudicate upon it.

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.13

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)
  • Mudd mba v. Wil lforce Kalisa, (C.A) No. 9 of 2002 (unreported)
  • Wasike Stephen Mugeni v Amori Sirvoyi (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 Lutume (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.