Wakilii

Kalyago v Wassajja and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 74 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court election petition decision
Decision
Appeal dismissed; 1st respondent confirmed as duly elected councillor for Kasubi Ward

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 appeal, upholding the Chief Magistrate's decision to include results from Up To-date Primary School polling station. The court held that disruptions during vote counting, instigated by the appellant's agent, did not invalidate properly returned results where votes were secured and counting completed under police supervision. The Returning Officer's exclusion of these results constituted non-compliance with section 135(1) of the Local Government Act, substantially affecting the outcome by wrongly declaring the appellant winner when the 1st respondent had obtained the highest number of votes.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; 1st respondent confirmed as duly elected councillor for Kasubi Ward

Facts

The appellant and 1st respondent contested elections on 25 January 2021 for Directly Elected Councillor for Kasubi Ward, Lubaga Division, Kampala District. Initial results declared the appellant winner with 179 votes against the 1st respondent's 176 votes. The 1st respondent filed an election petition alleging the Electoral Commission illegally excluded results from Up To-date Primary School A-M polling station where he polled 153 votes against the appellant's 119 votes. At that polling station, voting proceeded smoothly but counting was disrupted when the appellant's agent threw ballot papers on the ground, sparking violence. Police restored order and counting resumed under supervision. The presiding officer completed the declaration of results form, but the appellant's agents refused to sign, alleging ballot stuffing. The Chief Magistrate's Court allowed the petition and declared the 1st respondent the duly elected councillor. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred in law when she relied on results from Up To-date Primary School polling station that had been excluded by the Returning Officer.
  2. Whether the learned trial Magistrate erred in finding non-compliance with electoral laws affected the election substantially yet declared the 1st respondent winner.
  3. Whether the trial Magistrate erred in awarding costs against the appellant when non-compliance was attributed to the Electoral Commission.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Decision and orders of the Chief Magistrate's Court upheld.
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents.
  • Costs of the trial court awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Validity of Election Results — Disruptions During Counting — Effect on Results
Disruptions during vote counting that occur after voting has concluded do not invalidate election results where the votes were secured and counting was completed under proper supervision, particularly where the disruptions were instigated by an agent of the party challenging the results.
Electoral Law — Returning Officer — Duty to Include Valid Results — Section 135(1) Local Government Act
A Returning Officer is required under section 135(1) of the Local Government Act to declare elected the candidate who obtained the largest number of votes after addition of all votes from all polling stations. Exclusion of properly returned results from a polling station constitutes non-compliance with electoral law.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Burden of Proof — Need for Cogent Evidence
A party seeking to invalidate election results must adduce cogent evidence directly applicable to the facts in issue. Courts must scrutinize evidence carefully in election petitions due to the tendency of parties and witnesses to fabricate evidence to ensure victory for their cause.
Electoral Law — Disenfranchisement — Purpose of Electoral Safeguards
The purpose of section 12 of the Electoral Commission Act and Article 68(4) of the Constitution is to safeguard votes against fraudulent manipulation, not to disenfranchise voters or put an entire election into question without justification. These provisions must be applied cautiously and not mechanically.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Duty of First Appellate Court
A first appellate court has a duty to re-evaluate evidence and come to its own conclusion on issues of fact and law. While making due allowance for the trial court's advantage in seeing and hearing witnesses, the appellate court must weigh conflicting evidence and draw its own inferences and conclusions.

Legislation cited (3)

Cases cited (8)

  • Pandya v R [1957] EA 336
  • Bogere Moses and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Father Nanensio Begumisa and 3 Others v Eric Tibebaga (SCCA 17 of 2004)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (SCCA No. 10 of 1997)
  • Bantalib Issa Taligola vs Electoral Commission & Wasugirya Bob Fred
  • Hon Nakate Lillian Segujja & EC v Nabukenya Brenda (Election Petition Appeals 17 & 21 of 2016)
  • Bantalib Issa Taligola v Electoral Commission & Wasugirya Bob Fred (Election Petition No. 15 of 2006)
  • Mbaghadi Fredrick Nkayi & EC v Dr. Nabwiso Frank Wilberforce B (Election Petition Appeal No. 14 & 16 of 2011)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kalyago v Wassajja and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2021) [2022] UGHCCD 74 (22 April 2022)
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.