Wakilii

Apolot v Amongin and Anor (Election Petition No. 6 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHCEP 28 · 2016 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition challenging the declaration of the first respondent as winner of parliamentary elections for Woman Member of Parliament for Ngora District
Decision
First respondent validly elected as Woman Member of Parliament for Ngora District

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

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.

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 dismissed an election petition challenging the election of the Woman Member of Parliament for Ngora District. The petitioner alleged bribery through distribution of hoes, boats, iron sheets, and money by the first respondent. The court held that credible evidence was required to prove electoral malpractice allegations. The petitioner failed to prove with cogent independent evidence that the alleged distributions occurred during the campaign period, rather than as part of government programmes before nomination. The first respondent was validly elected.

Outcome

First respondent validly elected as Woman Member of Parliament for Ngora District

Facts

The petitioner and first respondent contested the election for Woman Member of Parliament for Ngora District held on 18 February 2016. The first respondent polled 24,539 votes and the petitioner polled 19,766 votes. The petitioner challenged the election alleging that the first respondent personally or through agents bribed voters by distributing hoes, boats, iron sheets, saucepans and money at various locations throughout the constituency between 12 December 2015 and 15 February 2016. The first respondent denied the allegations and contended that distributions were made as part of government programmes (NAADS and Office of the Prime Minister) between September and October 2015, before the nomination date of 2-3 December 2015. The petitioner supported her case with 38 affidavits while the first respondent filed 35 affidavits in answer.

Issues

  1. Whether or not the 1st Respondent was properly brought before this court or properly served by the Petitioner.
  2. Whether the 1st Respondent personally or through her agents, with her knowledge, consent or approval committed electoral offences/allegations.
  3. Whether the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the Constitution, Parliamentary Elections Act and Electoral Commission Act.
  4. Whether the irregularities and non-compliance if any, affected the result in a substantial manner.
  5. Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents colluded to commit electoral malpractices.
  6. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to any reminder sought.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed with costs.
  • The 1st Respondent was validly elected as Woman Member of Parliament for Ngora District.

Rules and key headnotes

Election Petitions — Burden and Standard of Proof
The burden of proof in election petitions lies with the petitioner who seeks to have the election annulled, and the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities, though slightly higher than in ordinary civil cases but lower than beyond reasonable doubt.
Bribery — Elements to be Proved
To establish the offence of bribery under section 68(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, three ingredients must be proved: that a gift was given to a voter, that the gift was given by a candidate or his agent, and that it was given with the intention of inducing the person to vote.
Election Petitions — Credible Evidence Required
Allegations of electoral malpractice must be supported by credible independent evidence, as people attached to candidates often go to any length to establish adverse claims or rebut them, and it would be advisable to look for cogent independent evidence in proof rather than relying solely on partisan testimony.
Bribery — Timing of Prohibited Acts
For alleged acts of bribery to fall within the ambit of section 68 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, they must have been committed after the candidate's nomination; where a respondent demonstrates that distributions were made before nomination as part of government programmes, such acts cannot constitute electoral bribery.
Election Petitions — Quality of Testimony
Where allegations are made of mass mobilisations at odd hours for distribution of items, but the evidence is silent on basic requirements such as lighting, seating arrangements, and other logistical necessities, and lacks cogent independent corroboration, such evidence fails the credibility test.
Service of Petition — Timing and Proof
Where an advocate swears an affidavit of service on 9 April and files it on 11 April, and the respondent endorses the notice of presentation with a date of 12 April, but offers no evidence to rebut the advocate's testimony that service occurred on 8 April, the court may find that service was effected within the statutory seven-day period.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (7)

  • 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)
  • Ndaule Ronald v Hajji Naddule Abdul (Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2006)
  • Kabuusu Moses Wagabo v Lwaiga Timothy Mutekanga & EC (Election Petition No. 15 of 2011)
  • Amama Mbazi v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, Electoral Commission and Attorney General (Election Petition No. 1 of 2016)
  • Musa Anthony Hamis Vs Dr. Lulume Bayiga M. Philip

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Apolot v Amongin and Anor (Election Petition No. 6 of 2016) [2016] UGHCEP 28 (25 July 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.