Wakilii

Ebil Fred v Ocen Peter and Anor (Election Petition No. 1 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHCEP 39 · 2016 Petition Granted — Election Nullified AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition challenging the election of the 1st Respondent as Member of Parliament for Kole South Constituency following the general elections of 18 February 2016
Decision
The 1st Respondent's election as MP for Kole South Constituency was nullified and the seat declared vacant; fresh elections ordered.

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 found that the 1st Respondent committed multiple electoral offences including sectarian campaigning by referring to the Petitioner as "Akwar Anam" (a Bantu descendant) to deter Langi voters; orchestrating violence through gangs led by his son that attacked and injured supporters of the Petitioner; and using a government vehicle during his campaign. The court held that proof of one illegal practice is sufficient to annul an election. The 1st Respondent's election as Member of Parliament for Kole South Constituency was nullified, the seat declared vacant, and fresh elections ordered.

Outcome

The 1st Respondent's election as MP for Kole South Constituency was nullified and the seat declared vacant; fresh elections ordered.

Facts

The Petitioner and 1st Respondent contested for the Kole South Constituency parliamentary seat in the general elections of 18 February 2016. The 2nd Respondent declared the 1st Respondent winner with 15,784 votes; the Petitioner came third with 5,867 votes. The Petitioner challenged the results alleging the 1st Respondent engaged in sectarian campaigning by repeatedly calling him "Akwar Anam" (grandson of Bantu people) and making disparaging statements, including that the Petitioner greeted people with sticks and had "developed buttocks like a sheep's tail" from being sodomized by the Baganda. The Petitioner further alleged orchestrated violence where gangs led by the 1st Respondent's son attacked his supporters with pangas and machetes on 17 February 2016, resulting in serious injuries including cuts to the head and eye. Houses were burned and property destroyed. The Petitioner also alleged the 1st Respondent used a government vehicle (Reg. No. LG001-058) allocated to him as LC5 Chairperson for campaigning. Six gang members were arrested and charged in the Chief Magistrate's Court.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Respondent personally or through his agents with his knowledge, consent and approval did commit electoral offences during campaigns or elections.
  2. Whether the 2nd Respondent has any liability in this case.
  3. Whether the Petition is competent.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The petition is allowed.
  • The election of the 1st Respondent, Ocen Peter as Member of Parliament for Kole South Constituency is nullified.
  • The Kole South Constituency seat is declared vacant.
  • The 2nd Respondent, the Electoral Commission, is ordered to conduct fresh elections for Kole South Constituency as soon as possible.
  • Costs of the petition are awarded to the Petitioner, Ebil Fred.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Offences — Sectarian Campaigning — Prohibition of Tribal Appeals
A candidate commits an electoral offence under section 23(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act when he engages in verbal sectarian campaigning based on tribal sentiments, including repeatedly referring to an opponent as a descendant of another ethnic group to induce voters to shun that opponent.
Electoral Offences — False Statements — Section 73(1) Parliamentary Elections Act
Under section 73(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, uttering false, disparaging, and defamatory statements about a candidate's character during campaigns, such as allegations that he greets people with sticks or has been sodomized, constitutes an electoral offence where the statements are intended to affect the election and cause the electorate to shun that candidate.
Electoral Offences — Electoral Violence and Intimidation — Liability of Candidate
A candidate who organizes groups or gangs to terrorize supporters of other candidates and intimidate voters commits an offence under sections 80(1) and 24(1)(b) of the Parliamentary Elections Act. Where the candidate's son leads gangs that attack, injure, and burn property of opponents' supporters, and the candidate sends these gangs with his knowledge and approval, the candidate is personally liable for such electoral violence.
Electoral Offences — Use of Government Resources — Section 25 Parliamentary Elections Act
It is an electoral offence under section 25(1) and (5) of the Parliamentary Elections Act for a candidate to use a government vehicle allocated to him in his official capacity as an LC5 Chairperson for purposes of campaigning for election. Such use of public resources during campaigns is sufficient to annul an election.
Election Petitions — Standard of Proof — Single Illegal Practice Sufficient
Proof of one act of an illegal practice or electoral offence is sufficient on its own to annul an election. Where multiple illegal acts including sectarian campaigning, false statements, electoral violence, and use of government resources are proved on a balance of probabilities, the election must be nullified.
Affidavit Evidence — Unchallenged Affidavits — Presumption of Truth
Where facts are sworn to in an affidavit and are not denied, rebutted, or challenged by the opposite party through cross-examination or counter-affidavit, the presumption is that such facts are accepted as true. This principle applies with particular force to affidavits from the District Police Commander and other public officers regarding electoral violence.
Election Petitions — Defective Affidavits — Liberal Approach
Courts should adopt a liberal approach towards alleged defective affidavits in election petitions. Under the doctrine of substantial justice enshrined in Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, courts are enjoined to disregard irregularities or errors in affidavits unless they have caused substantial failure of justice. Technical defects in the commissioning process do not invalidate affidavits where the substance of the evidence is properly before the court.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (10)

  • Mukasa Haris v Dr. Lulume Bayiga (Election Petition Appeal No. 18 of 2007)
  • Kakooza Baptist v EC and Anor (SCEPA No. 11 of 2007)
  • Paul Mwiru v Hon. Igeme Nathan Nabeta Samson (Court of Appeal Election Petition Appeal No. 06 of 2011)
  • Jugnauth v Raj Direvium Nagaya Ringadoo [2008] UKPC 50
  • Abdu Katuntu v Kirunda Kivejinja Ali (Election Petition No. 7 of 2006)
  • Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kiizza Besigye v Electoral Commission and Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (Presidential Election Petition No. 01 of 2006)
  • Samwiri Massa v Rose Achen [1978] HCB 297
  • East Mengo Growers Cooperative Union Ltd. v The Registrar of Titles [2009] Vol. 1 U.L.R. 312
  • Kirunda Kivejinja v Abdu Katuntu (Election Petition Appeal No. 24 of 2006)
  • Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty Bakireke (Election Appeal No. 4 of 2009)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ebil Fred v Ocen Peter and Anor (Election Petition No. 1 of 2016) [2016] UGHCEP 39 (12 August 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.