Wakilii

Hon. Mujungu v Tumwine and Another (Election Petition No. 5 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHC 46 · 2021 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition challenging the declaration of the 1st Respondent as validly elected Woman Representative to Parliament for Ntoroko District
Decision
Petition dismissed; 1st Respondent declared validly elected Woman Representative to Parliament for Ntoroko District

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 the 1st Respondent as Woman Representative to Parliament for Ntoroko District. The petitioner failed to prove allegations of multiple voting, ballot stuffing, voting by ineligible persons, bribery, or that the 1st Respondent lacked the requisite qualifications. The court found that the petitioner did not adduce sufficient credible evidence to satisfy the required standard of proof in election matters. The 1st Respondent was declared validly elected.

Outcome

Petition dismissed; 1st Respondent declared validly elected Woman Representative to Parliament for Ntoroko District

Facts

The petitioner and the 1st Respondent were candidates for District Woman Representative to Parliament for Ntoroko District in the parliamentary election held on 14 January 2021. The 2nd Respondent returned the 1st Respondent as validly elected having obtained 9,787 votes against the petitioner's 9,679 votes, a winning margin of 108 votes. The petitioner challenged the election on grounds of non-compliance with electoral laws, illegal practices including bribery and multiple voting at Kacwamba Mosque polling station, and alleged that the 1st Respondent was not qualified for election due to discrepancies in her academic documents. The petitioner alleged that military personnel took over the polling station, switched off the Biometric Voters Verification Kit, and engaged in multiple voting and ballot stuffing. The petitioner also alleged that the 1st Respondent bribed voters with food items, clothes, shoes, tarpaulins, plates, and money.

Issues

  1. Whether the elections were conducted in compliance with the provisions of the electoral laws, if not, whether the non-compliance affected the results of the election in a substantial manner.
  2. Whether the person other than the one elected won the elections.
  3. Whether there were illegal practices and offences committed in connection with the election by the candidate personally or with his or her knowledge and consent or approval.
  4. Whether the 1st Respondent was at the time of her election not qualified for elections as a member of parliament.
  5. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The 1st Respondent is the validly elected Woman Representative to Parliament for Ntoroko District.
  • The Petitioner shall pay the costs of this petition.
  • A certificate of 3 counsel is accordingly issued.

Rules and key headnotes

Burden and Standard of Proof in Election Petitions
The burden of proof in election petitions lies upon the petitioner who is required to prove every allegation contained in the petition to the satisfaction of the court. The standard of proof required is proof upon balance of probabilities, which is slightly higher than proof on a preponderance of probabilities but short of proof beyond reasonable doubt, due to the public importance and seriousness of the allegations normally contained in election petitions.
Illiterates Protection Act — Compliance with Sections 2 and 3 — Affidavits by Illiterate Deponents
Where an affidavit is sworn by an illiterate person, the Illiterates Protection Act requires that the writer or drafter and the translator write their true and full names and addresses on the document. Substantial compliance with these requirements is sufficient where the full name and address of the drafting firm appears on the document and is shared by the translator. The substance of the law is that the document was read, interpreted, and explained to the illiterate deponent in a language they understood before they signed it before a Commissioner for Oaths.
Oaths Act — Deviation from Prescribed Form — Jurat Certification by Third Party Interpreter
Where a third party interpreter certifies the jurat instead of the Commissioner for Oaths as provided in Form B of the First Schedule to the Oaths Act, and the Commissioner for Oaths thereafter administers the oath by commissioning the affidavit, this constitutes an insubstantial deviation from the statutory provision which does not render the affidavit irredeemably defective. The commissioning of the affidavit by the Commissioner for Oaths serves as certification that the interpretation was done to his or her knowledge and satisfaction.
Election Officers — Secrecy Obligations — Admissibility of Evidence
Section 7(6) of the Parliamentary Elections Act does not bar election officers from appearing in court as witnesses or parties in election-related matters upon conclusion of elections. What is prohibited is revealing, without lawful authority, matters that came to their knowledge or notice as a result of their appointment which would be antithetical to and would seriously damage the integrity of the employer and the proceedings of court. Admission or exclusion of election officer evidence must be decided on a case-by-case basis considering the protective purpose of the provision and the overwhelming interest in finding the truth.
Proof of Multiple Voting and Ballot Stuffing — Evidentiary Requirements
To prove ballot stuffing and multiple voting, it must be shown that the number of ballots cast at a particular polling station was not consistent with the number of ballots stated to have been issued to that polling station by the Returning Officer, or that the number of ballots cast exceeded the number of ballots stated to have been issued, or a tally sheet or Declaration of Results Form must be presented to show contrary results. Mere allegations without supporting evidence such as a list of persons who participated in the malpractice or evidence that more election materials than were allocated were utilized are insufficient.
Bribery — Proof of Registered Voter Status
In cases of bribery during elections, it must be shown that the person bribed was a registered voter. It is not enough to swear an affidavit that one is a registered voter and attach a voter location slip or national identity card. It is necessary to produce a copy of the voters' register showing the name of the bribed person. The only conclusive proof of a registered voter is evidence of a person's name appearing in the National Voters' Register.
Bribery — Ingredients of the Offence — Intention to Induce Vote
The three ingredients of bribery are: (1) a gift was given to a voter; (2) the gift was given by a candidate or his agent; and (3) it was given with the intention of inducing the person to vote. All three ingredients must be proved to the satisfaction of the court. Where a candidate donated items to a COVID-19 District Task Force during lockdown months before the election period, and there is no evidence that the candidate played any role in the subsequent distribution of those items or that the distribution was intended to induce voters, the offence of bribery is not established.

Legislation cited (28)

Cases cited (37)

  • Mukasa Anthony v Dr. Bayiga M.P. Lulume (Election Petition Appeal No. 18 of 2007)
  • Odo Tayebwa v Basajjabalaba Nasser & E.C (Election Petition Appeal No. 13 of 2021)
  • Ocen Peter & E.C v Ebil Fred (Election Petition Appeal No. 83 of 2016)
  • Kasaala Growers Co-op Society v Kakooza (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 19 of 2010)
  • Ngoma Ngime v E.C & Anor (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2002)
  • Hon. Otada Sam v Tabani Idi Amin & Anor (Election Petition Appeal No. 93 of 2016)
  • Mugema Peter v Mudiobole Abedi Nasser (Election Petition Appeal No. 16 of 2016)
  • Plan Virginia Mugyenyi v Hon. Tumwesigye Elioda & Anor (Election Petition No. 1 of 2018)
  • Abubaker Mashari v Bakunda (U) Ltd & 3 Ors (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 233 of 2015)
  • Tikens Francis & Anor v The E.C & 2 Ors (High Court Election Petition No. 1 of 2012)
  • Nakate Lilian Seguja & Anor v Nabukenya Brenda (Election Petition Appeal No. 17 and 21 of 2016)
  • Tamale Julius Konde v Ssenkubuge Isaac & Anor (Election Petition Appeal No. 75 of 2016)
  • Nanjibhai Prabhudas & Co Ltd v Standard Bank Ltd [1968] EA 670
  • Oloo Paul v Dr. Lokii John Baptist & Anor (Election Petition No. 6 of 2021)
  • Dr. Bayiga Michael Philip Lulume v Mutebi David & Anor (Election Petition No. 14 of 2016)
  • Kiiza Besigye v E.C & Anor (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Mugisha Vincent v Kajara Aston Peterson (High Court Election Petition No. 4 of 2016)
  • Suubi Kinyamatama Juliet v Sentongo Robinah Nakasirye (Election Petition Appeal No. 92 of 2016)
  • Toolit Simon Akecha v Oulanya Jacob L'Okori & E.C (Election Petition No. 19 of 2011)
  • Helen Adoa & E.C v Alice Alaso (Election Petition Appeal No. 5 of 2016)
  • Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty (Election Petition No. 4 of 2009)
  • Kamba Saleh Moses v Hon. Namuyangu Jennifer (Election Petition Appeal No. 27 of 2011)
  • Apolot Stella Isodo v Amongin Jacquiline (Election Petition Appeal No. 60 of 2016)
  • Nabukeera Hussein Hanifer v Kusasira Peace & Anor (Election Petition Appeal No. 72 of 2016)
  • Kabuusu Moses Wagada v Lwanga Timothy (Election Petition Appeal No. 53 of 2011)
  • Amoru & Anor v Okello Okello (Election Petition Appeal No. 39 & 95 of 2016)
  • Ourum Okiror Sam v The E.C and Anor (High Court Election Petition No. 8 of 2011)
  • Hon. Tumuramye Genensio v Tayebwa Herbert Musasizi & Anor (Election Petition No. 3 of 2021)
  • Magombe Vincent v The E.C and Anor (Election Petition Appeal No. 88 of 2016)
  • Okello Charles Engola & Electoral Commission v Ayena Odogo (Election Petition No. 26 & 94 of 2016)
  • Baleke Peter v E.C & Anor (Election Petition Appeal No. 4 of 2016)
  • Abdul Bangirana v Patrick Mwondha (Supreme Court Election Petition No. 9 of 2007)
  • Ninsiima v Azairwe Nshaija (Election Petition Appeal No. 5 of 2016)
  • Ngoma Ngime v E.C & Anor (Election Petition No. 11 of 2012)
  • Hon. George Patrick Kasujja v Fredrick Ngobi Gume & Anor (Election Petition Appeal No. 68 of 2016)
  • Oboth Marksons Jacob v Dr. Otiam Otaala (Election Petition Appeal No. 38 of 2011)
  • Rtd Col. Dr. Besigye Kizza v Museveni Kaguta & Anor

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hon. Mujungu v Tumwine and Another (Election Petition No. 5 of 2021) [2021] UGHC 46 (29 October 2021)
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.