Fred Badaa & Anor vProf Muyanda Mutebi [2008] UGSC 4

Supreme Court · 2008 Appeal Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download

Jurisdiction

Uganda

Case Type

Second election petition appeal to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeal's dismissal of an appeal against the High Court (Masaka)

Decision

Appeal dismissed; the concurrent findings that the appellant committed electoral bribery were 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 considered whether the first appellant committed the electoral offence of bribery by giving a cow to a football team during the campaign period to solicit votes. The High Court and Court of Appeal had concurrently found that the gift, promised after the team threatened not to vote for the appellant and made after the tournament dates were shifted to coincide with the campaign period, was intended to influence voters. The Court held that as a second appellate court it had no reason to interfere with those concurrent findings of fact, which the courts below had adequately and correctly evaluated. The appeal was dismissed with costs and the cross-appeal/counterclaim dismissed with no order as to costs.

Facts

Parliamentary elections for the Bujumba County seat, Kalangala District, were held on 23 February 2006. The first appellant, Fred Badda, was declared winner with 3,316 votes and the respondent, Professor Muyanda Mutebi, was runner-up with 3,292 votes. The dispute centred on an annual football tournament sponsored by the first appellant. The tournament dates were shifted to coincide with the gazetted campaign period. After the runners-up, Kagoonya/Kagoya FC, failed to receive the goat they were promised and threatened not to vote for the first appellant, he offered them a cheque of Shs. 100,000, which they declined, and then promised them a cow, which was duly delivered. Witnesses testified that the gift was made while the appellant pleaded with supporters not to let him down at the elections. The High Court and Court of Appeal both found the gift was calculated to influence voters to vote for the appellant.

Issues

Whether the appellant committed the electoral offence of bribery within the meaning of the Parliamentary Elections Act 2005.
Whether the Court of Appeal failed to properly re-evaluate the evidence on the alleged bribery and electoral malpractices.
Whether the gift of a cow to a football team during the campaign period amounted to a bribe.
Whether the Supreme Court, as a second appellate court, should interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

Orders

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

Key headnotes

Electoral Law — Electoral Offences — Bribery — Gift Made to Influence Voters During Campaign Period

A gift such as a cow donated to a group of voters during the gazetted campaign period, in circumstances showing it was calculated to influence them to vote for a candidate, constitutes the electoral offence of bribery, notwithstanding that it is connected to an annual social event.

Evidence — Appellate Review — Concurrent Findings of Fact — Intervention by a Second Appellate Court

A second appellate court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the trial court and the first appellate court where those courts have adequately and correctly evaluated the evidence and no error of law or misdirection is shown.

Civil Procedure — Memorandum of Appeal — Compliance with Rules of Court — Grounds Not Raised Below

A memorandum of appeal must set forth the grounds concisely and without argument or narrative as required by the rules of court, and a ground complaining of a matter that was decided in the appellant's favour, or that was never placed before the lower court, is improperly included.

Legislation cited (4)

Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 (No. 17 of 2005)
Civil Procedure Rules O.19 r.13
Rules of the Supreme Court r.82
Rules of the Supreme Court r.94

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 (Court of Appeal No. 9 of 2002)
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.