Wakilii

Babirye Zula v The Electoral Commission and Others (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 3 · 2026 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal by way of petition from Electoral Commission decision denominating candidate for Female Youth Councillor
Decision
Petitioner's disqualification from contesting for Female Youth Councillor 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 petition challenging the Electoral Commission's decision to denominate the petitioner as a candidate for Female Youth Councillor. The court held that the Electoral Commission had jurisdiction to hear the complaint directly under Article 61(1)(f) of the Constitution and Section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act, without requiring prior resolution by the District Returning Officer. The court found that the petitioner failed to prove she had lawfully changed her date of birth from 25/12/1991 to 25/12/1998 before nomination, as a statutory declaration alone is insufficient to effect such a change under Section 51 of the Registration of Persons Act. The Commission's decision was upheld as a lawful exercise of its constitutional mandate to verify candidate eligibility.

Outcome

Petitioner's disqualification from contesting for Female Youth Councillor upheld

Facts

The petitioner, Babirye Zula, was nominated by the Electoral Commission to contest for Female Youth Councillor, Iganga Municipality. The 2nd respondent, Wachambe Anisha, lodged a complaint alleging the petitioner lacked the requisite age qualification. The Electoral Commission conducted a hearing on 27/10/2025 and agreed the petitioner did not meet the age requirements under the National Youth Council Act Cap 114, which limits eligibility to persons aged 18 to 30 years. The Commission's records and a NIRA confirmation dated 30/07/2025 showed the petitioner's date of birth as 25/12/1991, making her 34 years old at nomination. The petitioner claimed she had lawfully changed her date of birth to 25/12/1998 through a statutory declaration dated 22/05/2024 and relied on a NIRA confirmation letter dated 03/08/2025. The Electoral Commission denominated the petitioner, and she appealed to the High Court seeking to set aside the disqualification.

Issues

  1. Whether the Electoral Commission had jurisdiction to handle the complaint without prior resolution by the District Returning Officer.
  2. Whether the Electoral Commission acted ultra vires by reviewing NIRA's determination of the petitioner's age.
  3. Whether the petitioner lawfully changed her date of birth before nomination.
  4. Whether the actions of the Electoral Commission in denominating the petitioner were lawful.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.
  • Decision of the Electoral Commission denominating the petitioner is upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Commission Jurisdiction — Original Jurisdiction over Pre-Poll Disputes
The Electoral Commission has constitutional and statutory authority to assume original jurisdiction over electoral complaints, including candidate eligibility disputes, without requiring prior resolution by the District Returning Officer. Section 15(1) of the Electoral Commission Act does not restrict the Commission to a purely appellate role but expressly mandates it to examine and determine any written complaint alleging an irregularity in the electoral process where such complaint has not been resolved at a lower level.
Procedural Fairness — Opportunity to be Heard
The principle of procedural fairness requires only that a party is afforded an opportunity to be heard, not that the decision-maker follow a rigid progression through lower administrative levels in every instance. Where a party was duly heard before the Electoral Commission, the requirements of procedural fairness are satisfied.
Age Eligibility — Youth Council Elections — Statutory Requirements
Under Section 9(3) of the National Youth Council Act Cap 114, a person is eligible to be elected to a youth committee only if they have attained the age of 18 years and have not attained the age of 30 years. Compliance with this age requirement is mandatory and must be established at the time of nomination.
Registration of Persons — Alteration of Date of Birth — Evidentiary Requirements
A statutory declaration standing alone is manifestly insufficient to effect a change of date of birth. Section 51 of the Registration of Persons Act permits rectification of errors in date of birth only upon authorization by the Executive Director of NIRA and on the basis of cogent supporting evidence, including a statutory declaration registered by URSB accompanied by either academic records, employment records, a birth certificate or a baptism card.
Birth Certificates — Presumption of Correctness — Scope of Application
Section 39(3) of the Registration of Persons Act, which accords birth certificates a presumption of correctness, is confined to changes or corrections of names and does not extend to alterations of a person's date of birth. Birth notifications do not attract the presumptive evidential weight accorded to birth certificates and cannot, without more, establish age for purposes of electoral eligibility.
Electoral Commission Powers — Verification of Candidate Eligibility
The Electoral Commission, in undertaking its constitutional mandate under Article 61(1)(f) to hear and determine pre-poll electoral matters, does not usurp NIRA's statutory role but is entitled and obliged to interrogate discrepancies in official records, particularly where such inconsistencies reasonably point to possible fraud or manipulation. The Commission's verification of candidate eligibility constitutes a rational, lawful, and proportionate exercise of its constitutional duty to ensure strict compliance with statutory requirements and to safeguard the integrity of the electoral process.
Candidate Eligibility — Temporal Requirement — Operative Date
Candidate eligibility must be determined on the basis of the operative date of birth reflected at the time of nomination. Any purported alteration effected after the commencement of the electoral process cannot retrospectively cure ineligibility, as to hold otherwise would undermine the fundamental need for certainty and integrity in electoral administration.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (8)

  • Anthony Harris Mukasa v Michael Philip Lulume Bayiga (Supreme Court Election Petition Appeal No. 18 of 2007)
  • Paul Mwiru v Hon. Igeme Nathan Nabeta Samson & 2 Others (Court of Appeal Election Petition No. 6 of 2011)
  • Muhindo Rehema v Winfred Kiiza (Court of Appeal Election Petition Appeal No. 29 of 2011)
  • Violet Adome v Emurut Simon Akurut Peter (Court of Appeal EPA No. 40 of 2016)
  • Grace Nalubega v Juliet K. Suubi Kinyamatama & Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 27 of 2021)
  • Ekwenare Naume v Electoral Commission & Epillo Isaac (Election Petition No. 9 of 2020)
  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council & Others [2008] HCB 55
  • Odoi Bernard Onen Mutusa v Electoral Commission and Others (Election Petition No. 9 of 2021)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Babirye Zula v The Electoral Commission and Others (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 3 (7 January 2026)
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.