Bahinduka v Rwemulikya and Another (Election Petition No. 3 of 2006)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the citizenship of the elected Member of Parliament. Held that the evidence of alleged Congolese nationality, including disputed enumeration documents and allegedly procured voter cards, failed to meet the standard of proof. The 1st respondent produced valid Ugandan identity documents and demonstrated citizenship by birth and descent through his father who was born in Uganda in 1942 to parents of an indigenous community existing within Uganda's borders as at 1 February 1926.

Outcome

Petition dismissed; 1st respondent confirmed as lawfully elected Member of Parliament

Facts

The petitioner challenged the election of the 1st respondent as Member of Parliament for Ntoroko constituency on grounds that he was not a citizen of Uganda but a Congolese national. The petitioner relied on three categories of evidence: testimonies from local leaders claiming the 1st respondent's father was enumerated as a refugee in 1993; alleged enumeration of refugees documents; and voter cards allegedly issued by the Democratic Republic of Congo to the 1st respondent and his father. The 1st respondent produced Ugandan passport, national ID, and birth certificate, and his father John Kituku testified he was born in Uganda in 1942 to parents of the Babito clan, an indigenous community. Kituku produced documents showing continuous residence in Uganda since the 1960s including land purchase agreements, tax receipts, and permits. The alleged Congolese voter cards disappeared from the court record after being briefly exhibited and were explained by the petitioner as obtained through a friend in DRC ministry.

Issues

1. Whether the 1st respondent was at the time of nomination qualified to contest for Member of Parliament
2. Whether the 1st respondent is a citizen of Uganda
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought in the petition

Orders

• The petition is dismissed.
• The 1st respondent is a citizen of Uganda and was therefore lawfully nominated for the position of MP for Ntoroko constituency and lawfully declared as winner in the election.
• A permanent injunction shall issue restraining the petitioner and his agents from claiming that the 1st respondent is a Congolese national or a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
• The petitioner shall pay the 1st and 2nd respondent costs of the petition.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (14)

• Constitution of Uganda Article 80(1)(a)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 9
• Constitution of Uganda Article 10(a)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 10(b)
• Constitution of Uganda Article 7(a) (1962 Constitution)
• Parliamentary Elections Act s.61(3)
• Aliens (Registration and Control) Act Cap 61 s.1(a)
• Aliens (Registration and Control) Act Cap 61 s.2(1)
• Aliens (Registration and Control) Act Cap 61 s.5
• Refugee Act 21 of 2006 s.2
• Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act s.30
• Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act s.39
• Registration of Persons Act 4 of 2015 s.54(1)(a)
• Registration of Persons Act 4 of 2015 s.60(2)

Cases cited (2)

• Odo Tayebwa v Basajjabalaba and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 13 of 2011)
• Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Another (1982) HCB 11

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

• Kabaale Kwagala Olivia v Beatrice Zirabamuzale Magola & Anor (Misc. Apeal No 34 Of 2010) (Misc. Apeal No 34 of 2010)

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