Wakilii

Ssebadduka v Chairman Electoral Commission & 3 Ors (Presidential Petition 1 of 2020)

Supreme Court · [2020] UGSC 52 · 2020 Petition Struck Out ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Presidential election petition heard at first instance in the Supreme Court, determined on the respondents' preliminary points of objection, followed by summary contempt of court proceedings against the petitioner
Decision
Petition struck out with costs; petitioner convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to three years' imprisonment

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment
Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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 struck out a petition by a prospective presidential aspirant who, having been refused a waiver of the voter-endorsement nomination requirement, sought orders ensuring a free and fair 2021 election. The Court held it had no original jurisdiction except over a petition by an aggrieved candidate challenging a concluded presidential election (Article 104); the petitioner, not yet nominated, lacked locus standi. The 1st and 4th respondents were improperly joined, and the incumbent President enjoyed immunity under Article 98(4). The petition disclosed no cause of action and was frivolous and vexatious. In separate proceedings, the Court convicted the petitioner of contempt for sustained abuse of the Justices and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment.

Facts

The petitioner, a prospective candidate for the 2021 presidential election, asked the Chairperson of the Electoral Commission to waive the statutory requirement that an aspirant secure the endorsement of a specified number of registered voters across a specified proportion of districts before qualifying for nomination. He argued, while disputing the existence of a Covid-19 pandemic, that travelling for endorsements would expose the public to infection. After the Chairperson declined, the requirement being a mandatory legal one he had no power to waive, the petitioner brought a petition in the Supreme Court seeking orders to ensure a free and fair 2021 election, joining the Electoral Commission Chairman, the Electoral Commission, the incumbent President, and the Ministry of Health. The respondents raised preliminary objections. The petitioner elected to remain silent on the substantive issues, but his pleadings, affidavits, and written communications contained sustained insults directed at the parties and the Justices of the Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to consider the petition.
  2. Whether the petitioner has locus standi to bring the petition.
  3. Whether the 1st and 4th respondents are proper parties to the petition.
  4. Whether the 3rd respondent (the incumbent President) is a proper party to the petition.
  5. Whether the petition is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court process.
  6. What remedies are available to the parties.
  7. Whether the petitioner's conduct in his pleadings and communications amounted to contempt of court and, if so, what sanction is warranted.

Orders

  • The preliminary points of objection are sustained in their entirety.
  • The petition is struck out with costs to the respondents.
  • The petitioner is cited for contempt of court and ordered to show cause why he should not be held liable.
  • The petitioner is convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to serve three years in prison.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Supreme Court Jurisdiction — Original Jurisdiction Limited to Presidential Election Petitions
The Supreme Court exercises only appellate jurisdiction under Article 132 of the Constitution, and its sole original jurisdiction is the limited exception under Article 104 to hear a petition by an aggrieved candidate challenging a concluded presidential election; jurisdiction must be conferred by clear law and cannot be inferred.
Electoral Law — Presidential Election Petition — Locus Standi Confined to an Aggrieved Candidate
Only an aggrieved candidate, within the meaning of Article 104 of the Constitution and section 59(1) of the Presidential Elections Act, may petition the Supreme Court; a person not yet nominated as a candidate has no locus standi to bring such a petition.
Electoral Law — Pre-Polling Decisions of the Electoral Commission — Remedy in the High Court
Decisions of the Electoral Commission made before the vote, including refusal of a waiver of nomination requirements, are actionable by appeal in the High Court under Articles 61 and 64 of the Constitution, or by enforcement of rights under Article 50, and not by petition to the Supreme Court.
Electoral Law — Proper Respondents — Persons Designated by the Election Petition Rules
Only persons specified in Rule 3 of the Presidential Elections (Election Petitions) Rules may be made respondents to a presidential election petition; the Commission's Chairman cannot be personally liable absent mala fide conduct under section 49 of the Electoral Commission Act, and a government department lacking corporate status must be sued through the Attorney General under Article 250(2) and section 10 of the Government Proceedings Act.
Constitutional Law — Presidential Immunity — Article 98(4) Exception Under Article 104
While holding office, the President is not liable to proceedings in any court under Article 98(4) of the Constitution; the only exception, by virtue of Article 104(8), is a petition by an aggrieved candidate challenging the validity of the President's election, so the incumbent cannot otherwise be joined as a party.
Civil Procedure — Frivolous and Vexatious Proceedings — Abuse of Court Process
An action is frivolous and vexatious where it discloses no reasonable cause of action, is plainly unreasonable and devoid of merit, or is presented in scandalous and abusive language; such an action constitutes an abuse of the court process and is liable to be struck out.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Contempt of Court — Scurrilous Attacks on Judges and Summary Jurisdiction
Sustained insults and scurrilous attacks on judges, calculated to obstruct the administration of justice, constitute contempt in the face of the court which the court may punish summarily; the power, derived from common law and preserved by Article 28(12) of the Constitution, protects the public interest in the due administration of justice rather than the personal dignity of judges.

Legislation cited (22)

  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.1
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.28(12)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.50
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.61
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.64
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.98(4)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.104
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.104(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.104(8)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.119
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.126(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.132
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 art.250(2)
  • Presidential Elections Act 2005 s.59
  • Presidential Elections Act 2005 s.59(1)
  • Presidential Elections (Election Petitions) Rules SI 16 of 2005 r.3
  • Presidential Elections (Election Petitions) Rules SI 68 of 2019
  • Presidential Elections (Election Petitions) Rules SI 13 of 2001
  • Electoral Commission Act s.49
  • Government Proceedings Act s.10
  • Penal Code Act s.107
  • Penal Code Act s.107(3)

Cases cited (23)

  • Amama Mbabazi v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni & Ors (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016)
  • Gordon Sentiba & 2 Ors v The Inspectorate of Government (Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2008)
  • Sekikubo & Ors v Attorney General & Ors (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2015)
  • Nixon v Fitzgerald 457 US 731 (1982)
  • Bernard Miller & 2 ors vs The Attorney General - 2016/CLE/GEN/1272
  • Attorney General of the Duchy of Lancaster v London and North Western Railway Co [1892] 3 Ch 274
  • Deox Tibeingana v Vijay Reddy (Misc. Application No. 665 of 2019)
  • Caneland Ltd & Ors v Delphis Bank Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 344 of 1999)
  • Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd & Anor [1991] 2 All ER 398
  • Re Johnson (1888) 20 QBD 68
  • Johnson v Grant 1923 SC 789
  • Morris v Crown Office [1970] 1 All ER 1079
  • A-G v Times Newspapers Ltd [1973] 3 All ER 54
  • A-G v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] 1 All ER 745
  • Morris & Ors v The Home Office [1970] 1 All ER 1079
  • Jenison v Baker [1972] 1 All ER 997
  • Robert Austin Mullery v R [1957] EA 138
  • Mr Lechmere Charlton's Case 2 My & Cr 316; 40 ER 411
  • R v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Ex parte Blackburn (No. 2) [1968] 2 All ER 319
  • R v Gray [1900] 2 QB 36
  • Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd [1971] 1 All ER 1141
  • R v Almon (1765) Wilm 243
  • Skipworth's Case (1873) LR 9 QB 230
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.