Hon Lokeris v Kamol and Anor (Election Petition No. 1 of 2021)
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
An election petition that is required by law to be supported by affidavit is invalid and incompetent where the affidavit is commissioned by an advocate whose practising certificate had expired at the time of commissioning. An advocate who has ceased to hold a valid practising certificate cannot lawfully act as Commissioner for Oaths. Documents commissioned by such an advocate are invalid and of no legal effect. An election petition filed with an invalid affidavit collapses for want of evidential support as required by law. The court cannot permit the petitioner to file a fresh petition months after the statutory thirty-day period has expired, as this would contravene the Parliamentary Elections Act and undermine the electoral process.
Outcome
Petition dismissed on preliminary objection for incompetence
Facts
The petitioner challenged the parliamentary election result for Dodoth East County Constituency held on 14 January 2021, in which the first respondent was declared winner with 7,903 votes against the petitioner's 7,892 votes — a margin of 11 votes. The petitioner filed an election petition supported by an affidavit commissioned by Mr. Komakech, an advocate, on 12 March 2021. At the time of commissioning the affidavit, Mr. Komakech's practising certificate had expired. He renewed his practising certificate on 18 March 2021, six days after commissioning the petitioner's affidavit. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petition was invalid and incompetent because the affidavit in support was commissioned by an advocate without a valid practising certificate and therefore without authority to act as Commissioner for Oaths.
Issues
- Whether the election petition was validly and competently before court given that the affidavit in support was commissioned by an advocate whose practising certificate had expired.
- Whether an advocate whose practising certificate has expired has authority to act as Commissioner for Oaths.
- What the effect is on the validity of an election petition when the supporting affidavit is commissioned by a person without authority to administer oaths.
Orders
- Preliminary objection upheld.
- Election petition dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the two respondents.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (10)
- Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 s.60
- Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Rules r.3(c)
- Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Rules r.4(8)
- Advocates Act s.11
- Advocates Act s.14
- Advocates Act s.15
- Advocates Act s.18
- Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act s.1
- Commissioner for Oaths (Advocates) Act s.6
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda art.126(2)(e)
Cases cited (7)
- Otim Nape George William v Ebil Fred and Another (Election Petition No. 17 of 2011)
- Kabogere Coffee Factory v Haji Twahibu Kigongo (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 10 of 1993)
- Bakunda Darlington v Dr. Kinyatta Stanley and Another (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1996)
- The Returning Officer, Iganga District and Another v Haji Muluya Mustaphar (Civil Appeal No. 13 of 1997)
- Prof. Syed Huq v The Islamic University in Uganda (Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1995)
- Kamurali Jeremiah Birungi v Nathan Byanyima and Another (Election Petition No. 0002 of 2021)
- Suubi Kinyamatama Juliet v Sentongo Robinah Nakasirye and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 92 of 2016)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.