Wakilii

Kasule v Ruyonga and Another (Election Petition No. 5 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCEP 27 · 2021 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition challenging 2021 parliamentary election results for Hoima West Division Constituency
Decision
Petition dismissed; 1st respondent upheld as duly elected Member of Parliament for Hoima West Division Constituency

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 an election petition challenging the 2021 parliamentary election for Hoima West Division Constituency. The petitioner failed to prove non-compliance with electoral laws, failing to particularize allegations of rigging, ballot stuffing, and voter disenfranchisement with admissible evidence. Allegations of bribery against the 1st respondent were not substantiated. The court held that affidavits must be based on deponent's own knowledge, not belief, and that failure of one agent to sign a Declaration of Results Form does not invalidate election results under section 47(7) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Outcome

Petition dismissed; 1st respondent upheld as duly elected Member of Parliament for Hoima West Division Constituency

Facts

The petitioner Kasule Ismail contested as the Alliance for National Transformation candidate in the 2021 parliamentary elections for Hoima West Division Constituency. The 2nd respondent (Electoral Commission) declared the 1st respondent (Ruyonga Joseph) the winner with 6,369 votes against the petitioner's 6,212 votes. The petitioner filed an election petition alleging non-compliance with electoral laws including rigging, pre-ticking of ballot papers, ballot stuffing, voter disenfranchisement, military intimidation, and falsification of results. The petitioner also alleged that the 1st respondent committed bribery by giving money to voter groups (UGX 100,000 to Tugondezangane group and Owomugisa women's group) and constructing a well to influence voters. The 1st and 2nd respondents denied all allegations, asserting the election was free, fair, and conducted in compliance with the law. Declaration of Results Forms were signed by agents at polling stations, with only one unsigned by the petitioner's agent.

Issues

  1. Whether the election for Member of Parliament for Hoima West Division Constituency was conducted in compliance with the Electoral laws.
  2. Whether the non-compliance and failure to comply affected the results in a substantial manner.
  3. Whether the 1st respondent committed illegal practices and offences under the laws governing Parliamentary elections.
  4. What are the available remedies to the parties?

Orders

  • Petition dismissed under section 63(4)(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 2005 as amended.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st and 2nd respondents.
  • 1st respondent upheld as the duly elected Member of Parliament for Hoima West Division Constituency.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Burden and Standard of Proof
In election petitions, the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to prove the case on a balance of probabilities as required by section 61(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Deponent's Own Knowledge Required
Affidavits in election petitions must be confined to facts within the deponent's own knowledge under section 59(a) of the Evidence Act and Order 19 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; statements based on information and belief are inadmissible in final proceedings such as election petitions.
Electoral Law — Declaration of Results Forms — Effect of Unsigned Forms
Under section 47(7)(d) and (e) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, the refusal or failure of a candidate or agent to sign a Declaration of Results Form, or the absence of a candidate or agent from the signing, does not by itself invalidate the election results.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Particularity Required
A petition that fails to particularize allegations of electoral non-compliance and relies on argumentative statements without disclosing sources offends Order 6 Rules 1 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and renders the petition incompetent.
Electoral Law — Illegal Practices — Bribery — Elements
To constitute bribery under section 68 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, four elements must be satisfied: a voter has been given a gift by a candidate or their agent with the intention of inducing the person to vote in a particular way, and the person receiving the bribe must be a voter.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (5)

  • Kiiza Besigye v Yoweri Museveni Kaguta and Another (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Male Mabirizi v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2018)
  • Kabatsi Kafura v Anifa Kawooya and Electoral Commission (Supreme Court Election Petition No. 25 of 2007)
  • Kabatsi Kafura v Anifa Kawooya and Electoral Commission (Supreme Court Election Petition No. 25 of 2007)
  • Apolot Stella Isodo v Amongin Jackeline (Election Petition Appeal No. 60 of 2016)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kasule v Ruyonga and Another (Election Petition No. 5 of 2021) [2021] UGHCEP 27 (28 September 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.