Electoral Commission v Kamba Michael Bhamusangala [2026] UGHCCD 226
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 granted the Electoral Commission a stay of execution of orders made in Miscellaneous Application No. 881 of 2025. The respondent had been served through WhatsApp by the process server but neither filed an affidavit in reply nor attended court, which the court treated as indicating loss of interest. The court accepted the applicant's unopposed grounds: a notice of appeal had been filed on 4 December 2025; the appeal had a high likelihood of success because the matter ought to have come to the High Court by way of appeal under section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act rather than at first instance; there was no unreasonable delay; and substantial loss of public funds (UGX 50 million) was likely. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.
Outcome
Stay of execution granted pending determination of the appeal
Facts
The Electoral Commission applied for a stay of execution of orders issued by the High Court in Miscellaneous Application No. 881 of 2025. It had filed a notice of appeal on 4 December 2025. The Commission contended that the appeal had a high likelihood of success because the underlying matter should have been brought before the High Court by way of appeal under section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act rather than as a court of first instance, that there had been no unreasonable delay in lodging the appeal, and that substantial loss would result if the stay were refused, with UGX 50 million of taxpayers' money at risk. There was evidence on record that the respondent had been served through WhatsApp by a process server, Kalongo Patrick, on 17 March 2026. The respondent filed no affidavit in reply and neither he nor his counsel appeared on the appointed hearing date. The application therefore proceeded unopposed.
Issues
- Whether the applicant established grounds for a stay of execution of the orders made in Miscellaneous Application No. 881 of 2025 pending appeal.
- Whether the application could be determined in the absence of the respondent who had been served but filed no affidavit in reply.
Orders
- A stay of execution of the orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 881 of 2025 is granted.
- The costs shall be in the cause.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (3)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.