Wakilii

Isabirye Iddi v Electoral Commission and Another (HCT - 03 - CV - EP - 0009 - 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHC 22 · 2016 Election Set Aside AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition challenging parliamentary election results for Bunya South Constituency on grounds of electoral malpractice and bribery
Decision
Election of 2nd respondent set aside; parliamentary seat declared vacant; by-election ordered

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 set aside the election of the 2nd respondent as Member of Parliament for Bunya South Constituency after finding that he committed the electoral offense of bribery by donating an ambulance to voters during the campaign period. The court held that while allegations against the Electoral Commission regarding non-use of biometric voter identification machines and other procedural irregularities were unproven, the donation of an ambulance inscribed as a gift to the constituency during the legally prohibited period constituted illegal inducement of voters under Parliamentary Elections Act s.68(7). The seat was declared vacant and a by-election ordered.

Outcome

Election of 2nd respondent set aside; parliamentary seat declared vacant; by-election ordered

Facts

Isabirye Iddi and Ntende Robert contested the parliamentary election for Bunya South Constituency held on 18 February 2016. The Electoral Commission declared Ntende Robert the winner with 18,789 votes against Isabirye Iddi's 18,366 votes. Isabirye Iddi petitioned the High Court alleging that the Electoral Commission failed to conduct free and fair elections and that Ntende Robert committed electoral offenses. The petitioner alleged non-use of biometric voter identification machines at various polling stations, malpractice by Electoral Commission agents, and bribery by the 2nd respondent. The specific allegation of bribery centred on Ntende Robert donating an ambulance bearing the inscription 'Donated to Bunya South Constituency by Ntende Robert' at campaign rallies on 1 and 3 February 2016. Witnesses testified that the 2nd respondent introduced the white ambulance registration number UAA 957Y at rallies, telling voters it was to save their lives and would be based at Bugadde. The 2nd respondent denied all allegations.

Issues

  1. Whether the election of Bunya South Constituency was conducted in accordance with the Parliamentary Elections Act
  2. Whether any non-compliance with the Parliamentary Elections Act affected the result of the election in a substantial manner
  3. Whether the 2nd respondent personally or through his agents with his knowledge consent or approval committed electoral offenses set out in the petition
  4. What reliefs are available to the parties

Orders

  • Petition dismissed as against the 1st Respondent (Electoral Commission).
  • Petition allowed as against the 2nd Respondent (Ntende Robert).
  • Election of the 2nd Respondent set aside under Parliamentary Elections Act s.61(1)(c).
  • Parliamentary seat for Bunya South Constituency declared vacant under Parliamentary Elections Act s.63(4)(c).
  • By-election to be conducted in Bunya South Constituency in accordance with the law.
  • Certificate of the judgment to be made to the Clerk to Parliament and the Electoral Commission.
  • Clerk to Parliament and Secretary of the Electoral Commission to obtain certified copies of the judgment and give effect to it forthwith.
  • Each party to meet own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Burden and Standard of Proof
In election petitions, the burden of proof rests on the petitioner and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The petitioner must prove to the satisfaction of the court grounds for setting aside an election by removing reasonable doubt from the mind of the court that there was non-compliance with electoral laws or that illegal acts and electoral offenses were committed during the electoral period.
Electoral Law — Electoral Offenses — Bribery — Scope of Application
Bribery under Parliamentary Elections Act s.68(1) need not be given to an individual voter. It can be given to a group of people in a village or an entire constituency. A gift that benefits a community of voters, even if it also benefits non-voters, constitutes bribery if given with intent to induce voters to vote for the candidate. It would be too narrow to say that giving money to a group of voters to buy something for their common use does not constitute bribery simply because it is not given to an individual.
Electoral Law — Electoral Offenses — Bribery — Donation of Ambulance During Campaign Period
The donation of an ambulance to a constituency during the campaign period constitutes bribery under Parliamentary Elections Act s.68(7). Such a donation, which provides a vital social service lacking in the constituency, goes to the heart of the electorate and becomes an exclusive centre of influence that can twist the minds of voters and blindfold them to the positive attributes of other candidates. Even if intended as charity, a donation made when an election is imminent is regarded as a specious and subtle form of bribery prohibited by law.
Electoral Law — Electoral Offenses — Charitable Donations and Imminence of Election
The imminence of an election is relevant in determining whether a donation or gift is a subtle form of bribery. A charitable donation may be unobjectionable when no election is in prospect, but if an election is imminent, the danger of the gift being regarded as bribery is increased. Parliamentary Elections Act s.68(7) enjoins politicians to keep charitable donations and fundraising in abeyance during the campaign period so as not to have a brush with the law.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Prima Facie Case and Burden of Evidence
In an election petition alleging bribery through agents, the petitioner must make a prima facie case by naming and describing the agents and disclosing their conduct. Once the agent is clearly identified and the conduct disclosed by affidavit evidence, the burden of evidence shifts to the respondent to adduce competent controverting evidence. If the petitioner fails to bring out the case clearly in the affidavit evidence, the respondent is not obliged to respond to evidence that has no scintilla of probative value. Merely alleging that unidentified agents committed acts is insufficient to make a prima facie case.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Departure from Pleadings in Election Petitions
In election petitions, a party is bound by their pleadings as presented in the petition, the affidavit in support accompanying the petition, and relevant annexures filed at the time of presentation. No evidence in respect of matters not pleaded can be relied upon. Order 6 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules prohibits parties from departing from their pleadings. An illegal practice or electoral offense must be specifically pleaded in the petition and affidavit in support for the court to have the mandate to investigate it.
Constitutional Law — Parliament — Role of Members of Parliament
The core function of a Member of Parliament under Constitution Article 79 is to represent the electorate in making laws on matters of peace, order, development and good governance, and to protect and defend the Constitution. A Member of Parliament is expected to be a spokesperson for local interests, an ombudsman and facilitator who deals with government matters, a lawmaker, and an examiner of government work. It is not the responsibility of a Member of Parliament to personally spend their money to render services which should be procured from the central government through relevant ministries and departments, as this would breach the doctrine of separation of powers.

Legislation cited (14)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 79
  • Electoral Commission Act Cap 140
  • Parliamentary Elections Act No.17/2005 s.50
  • Parliamentary Elections Act No.17/2005 s.51
  • Parliamentary Elections Act No.17/2005 s.61
  • Parliamentary Elections Act No.17/2005 s.61(c)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act No.17/2005 s.63(4)(c)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act No.17/2005 s.68(1)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act No.17/2005 s.68(7)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act No.17/2005 s.73(1)
  • Parliamentary Elections Act No.17/2005 s.78(a)
  • Parliamentary Election (Election Petitions) Rules SI-141-2 Rule 4
  • Parliamentary Election (Election Petitions) Rules Rules 29 and 30
  • Civil Procedure Rules Order 6 Rule 7

Cases cited (6)

  • Blyth v Blyth [1966] AC 643
  • Col. Rtd. Dr. Kizza Besigye v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Another (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Mathina Bwambale v The Electoral Commission and Crispus Kiyonga (HCEP No. 7 of 2006)
  • Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty Bakireke (Election Petition Appeal No. 4 of 2009)
  • Wadada Rogers vs. Sasaga Jonny and the Electoral Commission
  • Odo Tayebwa v Basajjabalaba Nasser and the Electoral Commission (Election Appeal No. 013 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Isabirye Iddi v Electoral Commission and Another (HCT - 03 - CV - EP - 0009 - 2016) [2016] UGHC 22 (18 July 2016)
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.