Wakilii

Akello v Tubo and Anor (Election Petition No. 7 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHCEP 27 · 2016 Petition Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition challenging the election of Woman Member of Parliament for Kaabong District on grounds of non-compliance with electoral law and commission of illegal practices including bribery
Decision
Election of 1st respondent as Woman Member of Parliament for Kaabong District set aside; fresh election ordered

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 2 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 2 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 High Court held that the petitioner proved multiple incidents of bribery of voters by agents of the 1st respondent with her knowledge and consent contrary to Section 68 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, amounting to illegal practices under Section 61(1)(c). The court found that the electoral process was marred by bribery at multiple locations including distribution of money and alcohol to voters. The court set aside the election of the 1st respondent and ordered a fresh election in accordance with law.

Outcome

Election of 1st respondent as Woman Member of Parliament for Kaabong District set aside; fresh election ordered

Facts

The petitioner and 1st respondent contested for Kaabong District Woman Member of Parliament in elections held on 18 February 2016. The 1st respondent polled 19,460 votes and the petitioner 19,334 votes, a margin of 126 votes. The petitioner challenged the election on grounds of non-compliance with electoral law and illegal practices. The petition was supported by 68 affidavits while the 1st respondent's answer was supported by 26 affidavits. The petitioner alleged various irregularities including failure to conduct a complete recount when two ballot boxes could not be located, cancellation of results at Kalongor polling station due to votes exceeding registered voters, delayed delivery of voting materials, problems with BVVK voter verification machines, insufficient voter education, anomalies in declaration forms, and late tallying of results. The petitioner also alleged widespread bribery of voters through distribution of money and alcohol by agents of the 1st respondent at multiple locations, campaigning within prohibited periods, sectarian statements, assault of agents, and use of government vehicles.

Issues

  1. Whether or not the election of the 1st respondent as a woman Member of Parliament for Kaabong District did not conform to and/or comply with the principles and laws governing Parliamentary Elections in Uganda
  2. If so, whether the non-compliance affected the results of the election in a substantial manner
  3. Whether illegal practices and/or electoral offences were committed in connection with the election by the 1st respondent personally and/or through her agents with her knowledge, consent or approval
  4. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • Petition allowed.
  • The election of Woman Member of Parliament for Kaabong District set aside.
  • A fresh election shall be held in accordance with the law.
  • Petitioner shall recover costs from the 1st respondent.
  • As between the petitioner and 2nd respondent, each party to meet its own costs.
  • Allegations of offences contrary to Section 80 PEA shall be comprehensively investigated and appropriate actions taken.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Bribery — Proof of Illegal Practice Under Parliamentary Elections Act
To establish bribery as an illegal practice under Section 68 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, a petitioner must prove on a balance of probabilities that a voter was given money, a gift, or other consideration by either the candidate personally or through her agents with her knowledge and consent or approval, with intent to influence the voter to vote or refrain from voting. Court does not require a multiplicity of incidents of bribery to annul an election.
Electoral Law — Agency — Determination of Agent Status Without Formal Appointment
To show that a person was an agent in an election, it is not necessary to prove formal appointment or payment by the candidate. The test is whether there has been employment or authorization of the agent by the candidate to do election-related work, or adoption of such work when it is done. This applies equally to persons appointed by the candidate's agents.
Electoral Law — Alcoholic Beverages — Specific Prohibition on Polling Day
Under Section 68(5) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, every candidate or candidate's agent who, before the close of polls on polling day, offers, procures, provides, or promises to procure or provide any alcoholic beverage to any person commits an illegal practice. The provision applies regardless of whether the alcohol is consumed before or after voting.
Electoral Law — Cancellation of Results — Burden to Prove Effect on Outcome
Where polling station results are cancelled due to irregularities such as ballot stuffing, it is not sufficient for a petitioner to show that irregularities occurred. The petitioner must go further and show how the cancellation affected the results of the election by adducing evidence of the actual votes cast at the polling station. Court will not speculate on how votes would have been distributed.
Electoral Law — Biometric Voter Verification — BVVK Machines as Secondary Aid
The use of biometric voter verification kits (BVVK machines) does not in itself constitute non-compliance with the Parliamentary Elections Act. The primary document for identification of voters is the voters register. Where BVVK machines were inefficient or did not work, this did not disenfranchise voters provided the voters register was available.
Electoral Law — Burden and Standard of Proof in Election Petitions
The burden of proof in an election petition lies on the petitioner because it is the petitioner who seeks to have the election annulled. The standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities as prescribed by Section 61(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, though this standard is higher than the ordinary civil standard but lower than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Electoral Law — Campaigning Restrictions — Directory Rather Than Mandatory Provisions
The provision of Section 20(5) of the Parliamentary Elections Act prohibiting campaign meetings within twenty-four hours before polling day is directory rather than mandatory, since the Act does not provide remedies against offenders. It was intended as an administrative tool for the Electoral Commission to monitor candidates and provide rest and calm. Violation does not warrant annulment of election results.

Legislation cited (26)

Cases cited (18)

  • Mbowe v Eliafu [1967] EA 240
  • Col (RTD) Dr Kiiza Besigye v Yoweri Museveni Kaguta (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Mukasa Anthony Harris v Dr Bayiga Michael Philip Lulume (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2007)
  • Rebecca Nalwanga Balwana v Electoral Commission and Others (Election Petition No. 47 of 2011)
  • Wesonga Kamana Edward v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition No. 14 of 2006)
  • Dr Otim Otaala Emmanuel v Oboth Marksons Jacob and Another (Election Petition No. 7 of 2011)
  • Achieng Sarah Opendi and Electoral Commission v Ochwo Nyakecho Keziah (Court of Appeal Election Petition Appeal No. 39 of 2011)
  • Kwijukye Geoffrey v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition No. 7 of 2011)
  • Akidi Margaret v Adong Lilly (Election Petition No. 4 of 2011)
  • Tolit Simon v Olanya Jacob Lo'kori and Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2011)
  • RTD Col Kiiza Besigye v Electoral Commission and Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (Election Petition No. 1 of 2006)
  • Amama Mbabazi v Electoral Commission and Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (Election Petition No. 1 of 2016)
  • Wesonga Kamana Edward v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition No. 39 of 2011)
  • Acheing Sarah Opendi and Electoral Commission v Ochwo Nyaketcho Kezia (Election Petition Appeal No. 39 of 2011)
  • Amama Mbabazi v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and Others (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016)
  • Akidi Margaret v Adong Lilly and Another (Election Petition No. 4 of 2011)
  • Byanyima Winnie v Ngoma Ngime (Civil Revision No. 9 of 2001)
  • RTD Col Dr Besigye Kizza v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and Another (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Akello v Tubo and Anor (Election Petition No. 7 of 2016) [2016] UGHCEP 27 (15 August 2016)
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.