Fiona Nakku v National Identification and Registration Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Application No. 655 of 2025)

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 an application for interim mandatory and prohibitory injunctions. The applicant sought to compel the National Resistance Movement to maintain her as flag bearer for National Female Youth MP and to restrain NIRA from altering her date of birth. The court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the conditions for interim relief: the status quo had already been altered by NIRA's reversion of her birth date, and she had not demonstrated irreparable harm. Granting the orders would render the pending judicial review and temporary injunction applications nugatory.

Outcome

Application for interim injunctions dismissed

Facts

The applicant was nominated as NRM flag bearer for National Female Youth Member of Parliament. On 18 August 2025, she was de-nominated by the NRM Electoral Commission following complaints about her age. NIRA had initially registered her date of birth as 20 December 1994 when she enrolled for a national ID in 2014. In April 2025, she applied to change her date of birth to 20 July 1997. Following complaints, NIRA reviewed the change application, found insufficient evidence, and reverted her date of birth to 20 December 1994. The NRM de-nominated her on the basis that she did not qualify as a youth under the National Youth Council Act, which defines youth as persons between 18 and 30 years. The applicant had pending applications for judicial review and temporary injunction. She sought interim orders to compel NRM to maintain her as flag bearer and to restrain NIRA from altering her biodata.

Issues

1. Whether the Applicant has satisfied all grounds to warrant the grant of the interim mandatory injunction against the 2nd Respondent and an interim injunction against the 1st Respondent.

Orders

• Application dismissed.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (10)

• Constitution of Uganda Article 42
• Judicature Act s.32
• Judicature Act s.42
• Civil Procedure Act s.98
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 50 Rule 3A
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 7
• Civil Procedure Rules Order 52 Rule 3
• National Youth Council Act Cap. 114 s.1
• Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1965
• Registration of Persons Act Cap. 332

Cases cited (4)

• Madubuike vs. Madubuike (2001) 9NWLR (Pt.719) 689 at 709
• Sound Cosmetics Uganda Ltd v Commissioner Customs URA and Commissioner General URA (HCMA No. 424 of 2017)
• Ojukwu vs Governor of Lagos State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.26) 39
• Rashida Abdul Hanafi and Another v Sulaimon Adrisi (HCMA No. 0077 of 2017)

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.

• Francis Magambe Byaruhanga v Lule Edward Mutimba Desh and Others (Miscellaneous Appeal No 37 of 2025)

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