Wakilii

Balikwa Nixon Kalungi and Another v Electoral Commission (Miscellaneous Cause No 180 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 81 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Electoral Commission to register a political party
Decision
Application dismissed as time-barred and not amenable to judicial review

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 application for judicial review seeking an order of mandamus to compel the Electoral Commission to register Yote Azale Party. The court held that the application was time-barred, having been filed over three months after the expiry of the three-month limitation period prescribed by Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009, and the applicants failed to seek an extension of time. The court further held that misjoinder of parties was not fatal to the application under Order 1 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, but the failure to comply with time limits rendered the application not amenable to judicial review.

Outcome

Application dismissed as time-barred and not amenable to judicial review

Facts

In September 2020, the applicants applied to the Electoral Commission to register a political party initially called Yellow Action Party of Uganda, later changed to Yote Action Party in May 2021, and finally to Yote Azale Party in January 2022. The Electoral Commission declined to register the party on grounds that signatures were falsified, incorrect administrative units were included, dead people and unknown supporters were listed. The first applicant, Mpologomankadde Sewava Kigimu, died and was replaced by Balikowa Nixon Kalungi. By letter dated 28 February 2023, the Electoral Commission communicated its final decision not to register the party and advised the applicants to seek redress in court. The applicants filed the judicial review application on 11 August 2023, over three months after the three-month limitation period expired on 28 May 2023, without seeking an extension of time.

Issues

  1. Whether the application is amenable for judicial review.
  2. Whether the application discloses any grounds for judicial review.
  3. Whether the decision of the Respondent rejecting to register Yote Azale Party offended the laws and procedures governing registration of political parties under the Political Parties and Organizations Act 2005 (as Amended), and thus were illegal, irrational and procedurally improper.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.
  5. Whether the person nominated to replace the late Mpologomankadde Ssewava Kagimu was joined as a party irregularly.
  6. Whether the application was filed out of the prescribed timelines in contravention of Rule 5(1) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009.

Orders

  • Application for Judicial Review dismissed.
  • Order of Mandamus denied.
  • Costs awarded to the Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Time Limits — Requirement to File Promptly Within Three Months
An application for judicial review must be made promptly and in any event within three months from the date when the grounds of the application first arose, unless the court considers that there is good reason for extending the period, and failure to bring the application within the prescribed time and failure to seek and obtain the court's order extending the time renders the application time-barred and not amenable for judicial review.
Judicial Review — Amenability — Effect of Time Bar
Where an application for judicial review is filed outside the prescribed three-month limitation period without seeking an extension of time from the court, the application is incompetent and not amenable for judicial review, and once an application is found incompetent, nothing can be done under it.
Civil Procedure — Parties — Misjoinder and Non-Joinder — Effect on Suit
No suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it, and misjoinder of a party is not fatal to an application where other properly joined parties can prosecute the case to the same reliefs.
Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies — Exceptions to the Rule
The rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, and in an appropriate case, despite the availability of an alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in judicial review where the application seeks enforcement of fundamental rights, where there is failure of natural justice, or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the ultra vires nature of an act is challenged.
Administrative Law — Time Limits — Substantive Nature of Limitation Provisions
Provisions for time limitation are substantive and limitation of actions is not concerned with the merits of the case, and where the law has set a time limit within which to bring an action, such time cannot be ignored or adjusted except in accordance with the law, and the general effect of the expiration of the limitation period is that the remedy is also barred.

Legislation cited (15)

  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 71 s.98
  • Judicature Act Cap 13 s.36(a),(b),(c)&(d)
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.3(1),(2),(4)&(6)
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019 r.7A(1)
  • Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 r.5(1)
  • Political Parties and Organizations Act 2005 s.3
  • Political Parties and Organizations Act 2005 s.5
  • Political Parties and Organizations Act 2005 s.6
  • Political Parties and Organizations Act 2005 s.7
  • Political Parties and Organizations Act 2005 s.7(3)
  • Political Parties and Organizations Act 2005 s.7(12)(a)&(b)
  • Political Parties and Organizations Act 2005 s.7(13)
  • Political Parties and Organizations Act 2005 s.8
  • Civil Procedure Rules O.1 r.9
  • Land Act s.91(10)

Cases cited (10)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Company Limited v West End Distributors [1960] EA 696
  • Mbarara Municipal Council v Jetha Brothers Ltd (Supreme Court MA No. 10 of 2021)
  • Housing Finance Company of Uganda Ltd v Commissioner General URA (HC MC No. 722 of 2005)
  • Salim Alibhai and Others v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCMC No. 123 of 2020)
  • John Sentongo v Commissioner Land Registration and 4 Others (HMC No. 13 of 2019)
  • M.P State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd v Jehan Khan [2007] SCC 88
  • Dawson Kadope v Uganda Revenue Authority (HCMA No. 40 of 2019)
  • I.P Mugumya v Attorney General (HCMA No. 116 of 2015)
  • Hilton v Steam Laundry [1946] 1 KB 61
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Balikwa Nixon Kalungi and Another v Electoral Commission (Miscellaneous Cause No 180 of 2023) [2025] UGHCCD 81 (11 June 2025)
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.