Wakilii

Kalyango v Wasajja and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2019)

High Court · [2022] UGHCCD 63 · 2022 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrates Court election petition decision declaring 1st respondent winner
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 Electoral Commission excluded results from Up To-date Primary School A-M polling station where the 1st respondent polled 153 votes and the appellant 119 votes. The exclusion followed disruptions during vote counting when the appellant's agent threw ballot papers on the ground, sparking violence. Police restored order and counting resumed under supervision. The 1st respondent petitioned the Chief Magistrate's Court, which included the excluded results and declared him winner with 329 votes against the appellant's 298 votes. The appellant appealed, arguing the results were tainted by violence and properly excluded by the Returning Officer.

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 1st respondent.
  • Costs of the trial court confirmed to the 1st respondent.

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 seeking to invalidate the results.
Electoral Law — Returning Officer — Duty to Include Valid Results — Section 135(1) Local Government Act
A Returning Officer is obliged 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 results from a polling station where voting and counting were properly completed constitutes non-compliance with electoral law.
Electoral Law — Evidence in Election Petitions — Need for Caution — Fabrication of Evidence
Courts must exercise caution in evaluating evidence in election petitions because parties and witnesses, motivated by desire for victory, frequently resort to fabrication of evidence and magnification of minor irregularities. Election contests present peculiar situations where political contests extend into courts of law.
Electoral Law — Cancellation of Results — Strategic Use of Violence — Abuse of Process
Candidates may not use violence instigated by their own agents as a strategy to cause cancellation of results in an election that has ended smoothly, especially where the violence occurs after voting is complete and the candidate detects a possible loss.
Electoral Law — Purpose of Electoral Commission Powers — Safeguarding Votes — Disenfranchisement
The powers conferred by section 12 of the Electoral Commission Act and Article 68(4) of the Constitution are to safeguard votes against fraudulent manipulation, not to disenfranchise voters or put entire elections into question without justification. These powers must be exercised in accordance with set standards and not whimsically.
Civil Procedure — First Appellate Court — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
A first appellate court has a duty to re-evaluate evidence and come to its own conclusions on issues of fact and law. While making due allowance for the trial court's advantage of 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 2020)
  • 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.

Kalyango v Wasajja and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2019) [2022] UGHCCD 63 (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.