Wakilii

Attan Moses Okia v Ariko Herbert Edmund Okworo and Others (Election Petition No. 11 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHC 1 · 2023 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition challenging the result of a parliamentary bye-election for Soroti City East Constituency
Decision
Election petition dismissed; election result upheld

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 the election petition challenging the parliamentary bye-election result for Soroti City East Constituency. The court rejected affidavits from twelve witnesses who had switched sides and deposed contradictory affidavits for both parties, finding them lacking credibility. On the merits, the court held that the petitioner failed to prove with cogent evidence that there was substantial noncompliance with electoral laws at the challenged polling stations. Allegations of ballot stuffing, multiple voting, arbitrary arrests, and falsification of results were not supported by credible evidence. The court emphasised that minor irregularities such as discrepancies in male and female voter counts do not constitute grounds for nullifying an election, and that the petitioner's failure to report alleged irregularities to the Electoral Commission during the election undermined his claims.

Outcome

Election petition dismissed; election result upheld

Facts

A parliamentary bye-election was held on 28 July 2022 for Soroti City East Constituency. The 1st respondent (FDC candidate) was declared winner with 9,407 votes, the petitioner (NRM candidate) obtained 8,771 votes, and a third candidate (UPC) obtained 115 votes. The petitioner challenged the result, alleging ballot stuffing, multiple voting, arbitrary arrests of his agents, shooting of live bullets, disenfranchisement of voters, and alteration of Declaration of Results Forms at six polling stations. Twelve witnesses initially deposed affidavits supporting the petition, then deposed contradictory affidavits for the 1st respondent, with four later claiming they were induced or coerced. The petitioner alleged his agents were arrested, that there was 100% voter turnout at some stations despite several voters claiming they did not vote, and that signatures on DR Forms were forged. The respondents denied all allegations and contended the election was free, fair, and conducted in accordance with the law.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should consider any affidavits whose propriety is challenged by the parties?
  2. Whether there was noncompliance with the electoral laws and principles laid down in them during the conduct of the bye-election for Member of Parliament, Soroti City East Constituency?
  3. If so, whether the noncompliance affected the results of the bye-election in a substantial manner?
  4. Whether the parties are entitled to the remedies sought?

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.
  • The Office of the Directorate of Public Prosecutions is directed to take keen interest in prosecuting the twelve witnesses who deposed contradictory affidavits: Emacu Rodrick Denis, Acibo Phois Mary, Egaru Moses, Akello Mary Goretti, Igimu Immaculate, Emesu Francis, Akello Grace, Ogwang Emmanuel, Ocen Nicholas, Okurut Nathan, Ongodia Stephen and Ariokot Demita.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Recanting Affidavits — Credibility of Witnesses Who Switch Sides
Where a witness deposes an affidavit in support of one party and subsequently deposes a contradictory affidavit for the opposing party, that witness has no credibility or integrity and cannot be relied upon to be truthful in any further affidavit. The court should reject all affidavits from such witnesses, whether in support of the petition, the answer, or in rejoinder.
Electoral Law — Professional Conduct — Inducing Witnesses to Recant
An advocate who approaches witnesses that have already deposed affidavits in support of a petition in order to induce them to file a different set of affidavits for a respondent is in breach of Rule 19 of the Advocates Professional Conduct Regulations and the tenets of a fair trial.
Electoral Law — Burden and Standard of Proof — Satisfaction of Court
In an election petition, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to prove allegations to the satisfaction of the court. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, but it must be at a very high degree of probability because setting aside an election is a grave matter of both individual and national importance. The petitioner must adduce credible and cogent evidence; an election petition cannot derive strength from the weakness of the respondent's case.
Electoral Law — Noncompliance — Proof of Substantial Effect
To overturn an election on the basis of noncompliance with electoral laws, it is not enough to merely show noncompliance. The petitioner must demonstrably show that the noncompliance affected the results of the election in a substantial manner. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches must be used to appraise the entire process of the election.
Electoral Law — Allegations of Irregularities — Duty to Report During Election
Where a petitioner or his agents fail to report alleged electoral irregularities to the Electoral Commission or presiding officers during the election process as required by law, and the agents sign Declaration of Results Forms without recording objections, the petitioner is estopped from challenging those results in court. Such allegations become an afterthought and lack credibility.
Electoral Law — Minor Irregularities — Discrepancies in Male and Female Voter Counts
Discrepancies in the number of male and female voters recorded on Declaration of Results Forms are simple arithmetic errors that do not point to noncompliance with the law or affect the integrity of an election. Such anomalies can be explained by human error and fatigue associated with Election Day and do not constitute grounds for nullifying an election.
Electoral Law — Security Deployment — Lawful Presence at Polling Stations
The mere presence of police or army personnel at a polling station is lawful where called upon by lawful authority. Deployment of security personnel does not lead to nullification of an election unless the petitioner adduces evidence that the security personnel engaged in illegal acts or election malpractice. Security deployment to maintain law and order and enable voters to feel secure is within the police's mandate.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (27)

  • Kintu Alex Brandon v Electoral Commission and Another (EPA No. 64 of 2016)
  • Nabukeera Hussein Hanifah v Kusasira Peace K. Mubiru (EPA No. 72 of 2016)
  • Mbaju Jackson v Thembo Gideon Mujungu & Another (EPA No. 0046 of 2021)
  • Qurum Okiror Sam v Electoral Commission and Ochwa David (Election Petition No. 008 of 2008)
  • Col. (RTD) Dr. Besigye Kizza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and the Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Col. (RTD) Dr. Besigye Kizza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and the Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2006)
  • Blyth v Blyth [1966] AC 643
  • Karokora Katono Zedekia v Electoral Commission Kagonyera Mondo (HC-05-CV-EP 002 of 2001)
  • Masiko Winfred Komuhangi v Babihuga J. Winnie (Election Petition No. 9 of 2002)
  • Sarah Bireete and Another v Bernadette Bigirwa and Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 13 of 2002)
  • Akurut Violet Adome v Emurut Simon Peter (EPA No. 40 of 2016)
  • Ch. Razik Ram v Ch Jaswant Singh Chouhan [1975] 4 SCC 769
  • Paul Mwiru v Hon Igeme Nathan Samson Nabeta & 2 Others (EPA No. 6 of 2011)
  • Odo Tayebwa v Bassajjabalaba Nasser & Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 013 of 2021)
  • Jeet Mohinder Singh v Harminder Singh Jassi AIR [2000] SC 256
  • Bantalib Issa Taligola vs Electoral Commission & Wasugirya Bob Fred
  • Amama Mbabazi v Y. K. Museveni and Another (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2016)
  • Hon. Gagawala Nelson Wambuzi v Electoral Commission and Kenneth Lubogo (HCT-03-CV-EP-0008 of 2011)
  • Muhindo Rehema v Winifred Kiiza & the Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 29 of 2016)
  • Sitenda Sebalu v Sam K. Njuba and The Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 01 of 2008)
  • Babirye Jane Zaninka v Bukenya Michael Iga and The Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 0002 of 2021)
  • Odetta v Omeda (Election Petition No. 001 of 1996)
  • Abdulkarim & Others v Shinkafi & Others (2008) 2 LRECN 536 CA
  • Akugizibwe Lawrence v Muhumuza David & 2 Others (Election Petition Appeal No. 22 of 2016)
  • Borough of Hackney Gill v Reed [1874] XXXI L.J. 69
  • Family & Children Services of Lennox & Addington v W(s) 2002 Carswell Ont 4917
  • Bura v Sarwath [1967] EA 234

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Attan Moses Okia v Ariko Herbert Edmund Okworo and Others (Election Petition No. 11 of 2022) [2023] UGHC 1 (20 January 2023)
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.