Wakilii

Hon Lokeris v Komol and Another (Election Petition No. 1 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCEP 4 · 2023 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition following parliamentary election; case remitted by Court of Appeal after preliminary ruling reversed
Decision
Petition dismissed with costs to the respondents; certificate of two counsel granted to first respondent

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 dismissed the election petition challenging the election of Komol Emmanuel as Member of Parliament for Dodoth East County Constituency. The petitioner failed to prove alleged non-compliance with electoral laws, including failure to conduct a mandatory recount, improper treatment of ballot papers, or that votes were cast outside prescribed hours. The petitioner also failed to prove allegations of bribery and procurement of prohibited persons to vote. The court struck out substantial portions of the petitioner's evidence for being hearsay, lacking proper certification, or relying on partisan witnesses without corroboration.

Outcome

Petition dismissed with costs to the respondents; certificate of two counsel granted to first respondent

Facts

On 14 January 2021, elections were held for Member of Parliament for Dodoth East County Constituency, Kaabong District. The Electoral Commission declared Komol Emmanuel the winner with 7,903 votes against Hon Lokeris Solomon's 7,892 votes, a margin of 11 votes. The petitioner filed this petition alleging non-compliance with electoral laws and electoral offences. The petition was initially dismissed by Justice Bitature on a preliminary objection regarding an expired practicing certificate of the Commissioner for Oaths. The Court of Appeal allowed the petitioner's appeal, set aside the trial court orders, and remitted the matter for trial on merits before another judge. Justice Serunkuma heard the remitted petition and parties framed five issues for determination.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition is validly and competently before the court.
  2. Whether during the elections for the directly elected Member of Parliament for Dodoth East County Constituency, there was non-compliance with the provisions and principles of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
  3. If so, whether the non-compliance affected the result of the elections in a substantial manner.
  4. Whether the first respondent or his agents with his knowledge, consent and approval, committed any illegal practice or offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act in connection with the Elections.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.
  • Certificate of two counsel granted to the first respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Election Petitions — Affidavits by Election Officers — Secrecy Requirements under Parliamentary Elections Act s.7(6)
Election officers who swear affidavits and disclose information touching an election to a party without lawful authorization from the Electoral Commission contravene section 7(6) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which protects the integrity of the secret ballot, and such affidavits must be expunged from the record.
Evidence — Certification of Public Documents — Declaration Forms and Voters Registers
Declaration Forms, extracts of the National Voters Register, and tally sheets are public documents within the meaning of section 73(a)(ii) of the Evidence Act and must be certified in accordance with sections 75 and 76 of the Evidence Act by the public officer in custody of such documents. Uncertified copies are inadmissible and cannot prove any fact they seek to prove.
Evidence — Hearsay — Disclosure of Sources in Affidavits
Affidavits must be confined to such facts as the deponent is able of his own knowledge to prove under Order 19 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Where a deponent swears an affidavit based on information, the source of the information must be disclosed and the grounds of belief stated with sufficient particularity. Failure to disclose sources renders the affidavit hearsay and inadmissible.
Electoral Law — Mandatory Recounts — Parliamentary Elections Act s.54(1)(b)
Where the vote margin between the candidate with the highest number of votes and the runner up is less than 50 votes, and the runner up candidate requests a recount in writing, it is mandatory for the Returning Officer to conduct a vote recount in the presence of a senior police officer after giving notice to all interested parties. The petitioner bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the request was made and refused.
Evidence — Partisan Witnesses — Requirement for Corroboration in Election Petitions
In election petitions, witnesses who are campaign agents, ardent supporters, or mobilizers of a candidate possess a high propensity to peddle lies to secure political victory. Courts must be cautious in relying on such partisan evidence and should require corroboration by independent, cogent evidence directly relating to the acts complained of.
Electoral Law — Proof of Electoral Offences — Bribery under Parliamentary Elections Act s.68
To prove the electoral offence of bribery, a petitioner must establish that money, a gift, or other consideration was given to a voter; that a candidate or his agent with his knowledge, consent, or approval gave the gift; and that the gift was given to induce a voter to vote for the candidate or refrain from voting for another candidate. The standard of proof is slightly higher than ordinary balance of probabilities and must be to the satisfaction of the court.
Electoral Law — Non-Compliance with Electoral Laws — Substantial Effect on Election Results
Under section 61(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, an election shall only be set aside if there has been failure to conduct the election in accordance with the principles laid down in the Act and such non-compliance affected the result of the election in a substantial manner. It is not sufficient to allege non-compliance; the petitioner must prove both the non-compliance and its substantial effect on the result.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (10)

  • Rebecca Balwanga Balwana v The Electoral Commission & Others (Election Petition No. 047 of 2011)
  • Hon. Achiro Lucy Otim & Electoral Commission v Kidega Nabinson James (Court of Appeal Election Appeal No. 019 of 2016)
  • Jwa Richard Okeny v Obol George Okot (Misc. Application No. 063 of 2012)
  • Kaggwa Michael v Olal Mark & 6 Others (High Court Civil Appeal No. 0010 of 2017)
  • Amama Mbabazi v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, Electoral Commission and A-G (Election Petition No. 001 of 2016)
  • Kasta Hussein Bukenya v Bukenya Balibaseka Gilbert & Another (Election Petition No. 029 of 2011)
  • George Patrick Kassaja v Fred Ngobi Gume (Court of Appeal E.P.A. No. 68 of 2016)
  • Kakooza John Baptist v EC & Anor (Supreme Court Election Petition Appeal No. 011 of 2007)
  • Wakayima Musoke & Electoral Commission v Kasule Robert Sebunya (Election Petition Appeal No. 050 of 2016)
  • Kiiza Besigye v Yoweri K. Museveni (S.C Election Petition Appeal No. 001 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hon Lokeris v Komol and Another (Election Petition No. 1 of 2021) [2023] UGHCEP 4 (9 March 2023)
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.