Wakilii

Kasibante Robert v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni Tibuhaburwa and Others (Presidential Election Application No. 3 of 2026)

Supreme Court · [2026] UGSC 7 · 2026 Application Granted ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to withdraw a presidential election petition and an ancillary discovery application, brought by Notice of Motion in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction
Decision
Leave to withdraw granted; petition and discovery application discontinued; the 1st Respondent confirmed as duly elected President; each party to bear own costs.

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 unanimously granted Kasibante Robert leave to withdraw his presidential election petition and ancillary discovery application, finding he had met the procedural requirements under Section 63 of the Presidential Elections Act and Rule 20 and that, having admitted he lacked evidence to prosecute the petition, refusing withdrawal would serve no purpose. Following withdrawal, the Court confirmed Yoweri Kaguta Museveni Tibuhaburwa as duly elected President under Section 61(4). On costs, the majority followed Kyagulanyi (2021), holding that 'shall be liable' in Section 63(4) is directory not mandatory, and ordered each party to bear its own costs to promote access to justice. Madrama JSC dissented, arguing the provision is mandatory.

Facts

The Electoral Commission conducted presidential elections on 15 January 2026 in which the applicant, the 1st respondent and six others contested. On 17 January 2026 the Commission declared the 1st respondent, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni Tibuhaburwa, the winner with 7,946,772 votes, having obtained more than 50% of valid votes cast. The applicant, who polled 33,440 votes, lodged Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2026 on 18 January 2026 challenging the result on grounds of non-compliance, alongside Application No. 1 of 2026 seeking discovery and inspection of physical and electronic election records and forensic analysis of the results transmission system. The respondents opposed discovery as a fishing expedition raising security and proprietary concerns. On the night before the Court's reserved ruling on discovery, the applicant filed Application No. 3 of 2026 seeking to withdraw both the petition and the discovery application, citing the prohibitive cost of obtaining evidence and his inability to sustain the petition without it. All respondents conceded the withdrawal; the 1st and 2nd respondents sought costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant had satisfied the statutory and procedural requirements for leave to withdraw a presidential election petition under Section 63 of the Presidential Elections Act and Rule 20 of the Rules.
  2. Whether the applicant had made out a proper case for the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of granting leave to withdraw the petition and the discovery application.
  3. Whether the word 'shall' in Section 63(4) of the Presidential Elections Act ('the petitioner shall be liable to pay the costs of the respondent') is mandatory or directory, and whether costs should follow the event on withdrawal.
  4. What the legal consequences of withdrawing the petition are for the declared winner of the presidential election.

Orders

  • The application for withdrawal (Presidential Election Application No. 3 of 2026) is granted.
  • Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2026 and Presidential Election Application No. 1 of 2026 are discontinued.
  • The 1st Respondent, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni Tibuhaburwa, is declared and confirmed the duly elected President of Uganda.
  • By majority (Madrama JSC dissenting), each party shall bear its own costs of the petition and the applications arising from it, including the present application.

Key headnotes

Electoral Law — Presidential Election Petitions — Withdrawal — Leave of Court Required
A presidential election petition may not be withdrawn except with the leave of the court; the grant of leave is discretionary and exercised judiciously on the unique circumstances of each case, the respondents' non-objection being only one material factor.
Electoral Law — Presidential Election Petitions — Withdrawal — Procedural Requirements
An applicant for leave to withdraw a presidential election petition must satisfy Rule 20 by an affidavit of the petitioner and advocate stating that no agreement or undertaking has been made and that the decision to withdraw is not influenced by a corrupt motive, and notice of the application must be gazetted and posted on the court notice board.
Statutory Interpretation — 'Shall be liable' — Directory vs Mandatory — Award of Costs on Withdrawal
The phrase 'shall be liable to pay the costs of the respondent' in Section 63(4) of the Presidential Elections Act is directory and not mandatory; it does not divest the court of its discretionary power over costs, which must be exercised judiciously with the general principle that costs follow the event unless good reason exists to order otherwise.
Civil Procedure — Costs — Access to Justice in Public Interest Election Litigation
In presidential election petitions the discretion on costs must balance the principle that costs follow the event against the risk that an overwhelming costs burden would deter financially disadvantaged litigants from seeking recourse; where pivotal, the balance is tilted in favour of access to justice, justifying an order that each party bear its own costs.
Electoral Law — Presidential Election Petitions — Effect of Withdrawal — Confirmation of Elected President
Where a presidential election petition is withdrawn, there is no valid legal challenge to the election, and under Section 61(4) of the Presidential Elections Act the candidate earlier declared the winner is conclusively taken to have been duly elected as President.

Legislation cited (21)

  • Presidential Elections Act Cap.179 s.63
  • Presidential Elections Act Cap.179 s.63(4)
  • Presidential Elections Act Cap.179 s.61(1)
  • Presidential Elections Act Cap.179 s.61(2)
  • Presidential Elections Act Cap.179 s.61(3)
  • Presidential Elections Act Cap.179 s.61(4)
  • Presidential Elections Act Cap.179 s.61(11)
  • Presidential Elections (Election Petitions) Rules, S.I No.13 of 2001, Rule 20
  • Presidential Elections (Election Petitions) Rules r.20(3)
  • Presidential Elections (Election Petitions) Rules r.20(5)(b)
  • Presidential Elections (Election Petitions) Rules r.20(7)
  • Presidential Elections (Election Petitions) Rules r.23(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 104(1)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 104(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 126(2)
  • Constitution of Uganda 1995 Article 132(4)
  • Civil Procedure Act Cap.282 s.27
  • Local Governments Act Cap.138 s.156(4)
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 25 r.1
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 5 r.1(3)
  • Interpretation Act Cap.2

Cases cited (13)

  • Kyagulanyi v Museveni & 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 5 of 2021)
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Sam Njuba and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 26 of 2007)
  • Kampala Capital City Authority v Kabandize & 10 Ors (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2014)
  • Bitamisi Namuddu v Rwabuganda Godfrey (Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2014)
  • Thompson (Dudley) v Attorney General (Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1981) [1982] JMCA Civ 1
  • Odinga & 7 others v IEBC & 3 others (Petition Nos. 5, 3 & 4 of 2013) [2013] KESC 1
  • Raila Amolo Odinga & Another v IEBC & Others (Petition No. 1 of 2017)
  • Odinga & 16 others v Ruto & 10 others [2022] KESC 56
  • Lewanika and Ors v Chiluba (SCZ EP No. 3 of 1996) [1997] ZMSC 45
  • Hakainde Hichilema and Anor v Edgar Chagwa Lungu and Ors (2016/CC/0031) [2016] ZMCC 1
  • Besigye Kizza v. Museveni Yoweri Kaguta (2001)
  • Ssewanyana v Lubowa UGHCCD (2014) 134 (31 Oct 2014)
  • R v Horsham JJ Ex Parte Farquharson [1982] 2 All ER 269
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.