Wakilii

Hon Ssebamala Richard and Others v Democratic Party and Others [2026] UGHC 4

High Court · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Judicial review application challenging internal party elections, dismissed on preliminary objection for failure to exhaust internal remedies
Decision
Application dismissed for failure to exhaust internal party dispute resolution mechanisms

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 judicial review application on a preliminary objection. The court held that applicants challenging internal party elections must first exhaust the grievance procedures laid down in the party constitution before resorting to judicial review. The Democratic Party Constitution Article 8(i) expressly prohibits members from instituting legal proceedings without first exhausting internal remedies. The applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying bypassing internal mechanisms.

Outcome

Application dismissed for failure to exhaust internal party dispute resolution mechanisms

Facts

The applicants are active members of the Democratic Party who expressed interest in contesting for various positions in the party's National Executive Committee. Between 30 May and 2 June 2025, the party held its National Delegates Conference at Asamar Country Resort in Mbarara City to elect new office bearers. The applicants picked nomination forms, filled them, and paid nomination fees. However, during the conference, the first to sixth applicants were allegedly disqualified and their names struck off the list of candidates without lawful justification. They were denied the opportunity to declare their candidature and contest in the elections. The seventh to twelfth applicants alleged they were denied the opportunity to participate in free and fair elections. The applicants challenged the elections through judicial review without first pursuing the internal dispute resolution mechanisms provided in the Democratic Party Constitution.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants exhausted internal dispute resolution mechanisms of the Democratic Party before seeking judicial review.
  2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a judicial review application where internal party remedies have not been exhausted.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies — Internal Party Dispute Mechanisms
An applicant seeking judicial review must first exhaust existing remedies available within the public body or under the law before resorting to court, save for exceptional circumstances. Where a political party's constitution provides internal grievance procedures and expressly prohibits members from instituting legal proceedings without first exhausting those procedures, the court will dismiss a judicial review application brought in breach of that requirement.
Judicial Review — Remedy of Last Resort — General Principle
Judicial review is a remedy of last resort and should not be available where an alternative remedy exists and has not been pursued. The rule operates to relieve pressure on the judicial review jurisdiction without depriving the individual access to the courts, though it regulates the means by which and the court to which the individual makes his challenge.
Administrative Law — Political Parties — Internal Constitutions — Binding Effect
A political party's constitution is the supreme law as to the governance and management of the party and binds each and every member. Where the party constitution establishes internal dispute resolution mechanisms and prohibits resort to court before exhausting those mechanisms, members must comply with that requirement.
Judicial Review — Exceptional Circumstances — When Alternative Remedies May Be Bypassed
The requirement to exhaust alternative remedies before seeking judicial review is a general rule, not an absolute one. Exceptional circumstances justifying proceeding directly to judicial review include where the claim raises a point of law or an issue of general importance going beyond the significance of the particular case, or upon which it is desirable to have definitive guidance from court.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (14)

  • Edith C. Byanyima and 2 Others v The Democratic Party and 7 Others (HCMC No. 0021 of 2025)
  • Lead Insurance Limited v Insurance Regulatory Authority and Another (CACA No. 237 of 2015)
  • Kitgum Municipal Council and Others v Suzan Adokorach and 15 Others (HCCA No. 0083 of 2009)
  • Ssemwanga and 31 Others v The Democratic Party [2020] UGHC 196
  • Dr Joseph Tindyebwa v FDC and Kaija Harold [2022] UGHC 203
  • R v Epping and Harlow General Commissioners ex p Goldstraw [1983] 3 All ER 257
  • Re Preston [1985] AC 835
  • R v Hammersmith & Fulham LBC ex p Burkett [2002] UKHL 23
  • R (G) v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2004] EWCA Civ 1731
  • Nakasero Market Sitting Vendors and Traders Ltd v KCCA and Another (HCMC No. 348 of 2020)
  • National Information Technology Authority Uganda v Uganda Investment Authority and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 105 of 2021)
  • R v Panel on Takeover and Mergers ex p Guinness plc [1990] 1 QB 146
  • Water & Environment Media Network (U) Ltd v National Environmental Management Authority (Consolidated Misc. Cause Nos. 239 & 255 of 2020)
  • R v Huntingdon District Council ex p Cowan [1984] 1 All ER 58

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Hon Ssebamala Richard and Others v Democratic Party and Others 2026 UGHC 4 (7 January 2026)
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.