Wakilii

Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) v Electoral Commission and Another (Consolidated Miscellaneous Causes No. 234 & 238 of 2018)

High Court · [2018] UGHCCD 257 · 2018 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review application seeking mandamus and declarations regarding publication of Local Council 1 election results in the national gazette
Decision
Applications dismissed with costs to the respondents

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 court held that the Electoral Commission was not required by law to gazette Local Council 1 election results in the national gazette. Section 137 of the Local Governments Act, which mandates gazette publication, applies only to local government council elections under Part X-A, not to elections at lower administrative units under Part X-B. Section 163 and Section 168, governing LC 1 elections, contain no gazette publication requirement. The court applied the principle expressum facit cessare tacitum, holding that the Legislature's express exclusion of gazette publication for LC 1 elections must be given effect.

Outcome

Applications dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The Electoral Commission conducted Local Council 1 (village level) elections on 10 and 11 July 2018. The Forum for Democratic Change, a registered political party that had sponsored candidates in those elections, along with two individual applicants who had lost in LC 1 elections, sought judicial review. They alleged that the Electoral Commission had failed to publish the election results in the national gazette as required by Section 137 of the Local Governments Act, and that the Attorney General had proceeded to swear in elected LC 1 Chairpersons without gazette publication. The applicants contended this violated the law and prevented them from filing election petitions within the statutory time limits. The Electoral Commission responded that gazette publication is not required for LC 1 elections, only for local government council elections, and that the process of compiling results from over 60,799 villages was ongoing. Approximately 124 election petitions had already been filed in magistrates courts challenging LC 1 results.

Issues

  1. Whether the application raises a cause of action against the 2nd Respondent (Attorney General).
  2. Whether failure to gazette the Local Council 1 election results by the Electoral Commission was illegal.
  3. Whether the swearing in of elected LC 1 Chairpersons before results are published in the gazette was unlawful.
  4. What remedies are available to the applicants.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Local Council Elections — Gazette Publication Requirement — Part X of Local Governments Act
The Local Governments Act creates two distinct electoral regimes: Part X-A governs local government council elections (district, sub-county, and division councils), while Part X-B governs elections at lower administrative units (village, parish, and ward councils). The requirement in Section 137 to publish election results in the national gazette applies only to local government council elections under Part X-A and does not extend to Local Council 1 elections under Part X-B.
Statutory Interpretation — Expressum facit cessare tacitum — Express Provision Excludes Implication
Where a statute makes express provision for a particular matter in one section but is silent on that matter in another section dealing with a parallel regime, the principle expressum facit cessare tacitum applies: the express provision excludes any implication that the same requirement applies to the silent section. Courts may not read into legislation requirements that the Legislature deliberately chose to exclude.
Statutory Interpretation — Harmonious Construction — Conflicting Provisions
Where two provisions of the same statute appear to be in conflict, they should be interpreted harmoniously to give effect to both. If harmonious construction is not possible, the court must determine which is the leading provision and which is the subordinate provision, and which must give way to the other. The court should interpret the statute by adopting the plain and literal meaning of clear and unambiguous language.
Statutory Interpretation — Use of Headings and Sub-Headings — Contextual Construction
It is legitimate and proper to have recourse to the headings and sub-headings given to sections and groups of sections in an Act of Parliament to find guidance for the construction of the words in the statute. Every section of a statute must be construed with reference to the context and other sections of the Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Attorney General as Proper Respondent — Chief Administrative Officers
Where the Chief Administrative Officer of each district, acting as head of the public service in that district, swears in elected local council office bearers as part of a coordinated national exercise under the direction of the central government through the Ministry of Local Government, the Attorney General is a proper respondent to a judicial review application challenging the swearing-in process, notwithstanding that the acts were performed by district-level officers.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (4)

  • John Jet Tumwebaze v Makerere University Council and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 353 of 2005)
  • DOTT Services Ltd v Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 125 of 2009)
  • Balondemu David v Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
  • Institute of Patents Agents v Joseph Lockwood [1894] AC 347

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) v Electoral Commission and Another (Consolidated Miscellaneous Causes No. 234 & 238 of 2018) [2018] UGHCCD 257 (2 December 2018)
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.