Wakilii

Kayanja v Rulinda and Another (Election Petition No. 14 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCCD 7 · 2023 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition challenging the outcome of Local Government Council Chairperson Elections for Entebbe Municipality, following remittal by the Court of Appeal after successful appeal against initial striking out
Decision
Petition dismissed; first respondent declared validly elected as Mayor/Chairperson of Entebbe Municipality

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

Held that the petitioner failed to prove to the required standard that the declared election results for Entebbe Municipality Mayoral elections of 25 January 2021 were falsified. The court found no credible cogent evidence that the tamper proof envelopes containing Declaration of Results forms were compromised or that results were inflated in favour of the first respondent. The petitioner's reliance on uncertified DR forms was rejected where his agents did not deny their signatures on certified forms provided by the Electoral Commission, while presiding officers denied signatures on the petitioner's uncertified forms. Petition dismissed; first respondent validly elected.

Outcome

Petition dismissed; first respondent declared validly elected as Mayor/Chairperson of Entebbe Municipality

Facts

The petitioner contested the Entebbe Municipality Mayoral elections held on 25 January 2021 against six other candidates including the first respondent. The Returning Officer declared the first respondent elected with 6,703 votes, while the petitioner obtained 5,576 votes, placing him third. The petitioner challenged the result, alleging falsification of results at ten contested polling stations and inflation of votes in favour of the first respondent by 3,878 votes. The petition was initially struck out on procedural grounds but was remitted to the High Court by the Court of Appeal with directions that witness affidavits be treated as witness statements and witnesses be summoned for cross-examination. The petitioner claimed he actually won with 5,671 votes and that the first respondent obtained only 2,825 votes, not 6,703. The petitioner relied on uncertified Declaration of Results forms given to his agents at polling stations, which showed different results from certified DR forms provided by the Electoral Commission.

Issues

  1. Whether or not the 1st Respondent was validly declared as winner of the position of the Chairperson/Mayor Entebbe Municipality in the Elections conducted on 25 January 2021.
  2. Whether or not the Petitioner won the Elections.
  3. Whether there are remedies available to the parties.

Orders

  • Petition dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
  • It is declared that the 1st Respondent Rulinda Fabrice Brad was validly elected as the Mayor/Chairperson in the Entebbe Municipality Election.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Burden and Standard of Proof
In an election petition under the Local Government Act, the petitioner bears the burden to prove every allegation to the satisfaction of the court on the balance of probabilities, which in electoral matters requires proof slightly higher than preponderance of probabilities but short of proof beyond reasonable doubt, reflecting the public importance and seriousness of allegations in election petitions.
Electoral Law — Transmission of Results — Tamper Proof Envelopes — Burden of Proof
For a court to find that results declared at the tally centre by the Returning Officer are false, the petitioner must adduce credible cogent evidence demonstrating that the tamper proof envelope containing the sealed Declaration of Results forms was opened not in accordance with the law and that its contents were compromised. Hearsay evidence from agents who were not present when envelopes were opened at the tally centre cannot satisfy this standard.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Declaration of Results Forms — Requirement for Certification
Declaration of Results forms are public documents which must be proved by primary evidence except as provided in section 64 of the Evidence Act. A party seeking to rely on uncertified DR forms must give notice to the party in possession of the originals and prove that certification was refused or that certification fees were paid. Where certified copies are eventually provided by the Electoral Commission, the petitioner cannot rely on uncertified copies obtained by agents unless the authenticity of the certified copies is successfully impeached.
Evidence — Expert Evidence — Forensic Handwriting Analysis — Weight
While courts must give proper respect to the opinion of experts, such opinions are not binding on the court. Expert evidence must be considered along with all other available evidence, and if there is proper and cogent basis for rejecting the expert opinion, the court is entitled to do so. Where a forensic expert produces two inconsistent reports that create confusion and fails to appear for cross-examination, the court may reject such expert opinion.
Electoral Law — Authenticity of Results — Signatures on Declaration Forms
Where a petitioner's agents do not categorically deny their signatures appearing on certified Declaration of Results forms provided by the Electoral Commission, but presiding officers categorically deny their purported signatures on uncertified DR forms relied upon by the petitioner, the court is entitled to find the certified forms authentic and reject the uncertified forms as not reflecting the true results of the polls.
Evidence — Approbate and Reprobate — Doctrine of Election
A party cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. No person can accept and reject the same instrument and thereby obtain advantage from it on the footing that it is valid, and then turn around and say it is void for purposes of securing some other advantage. A petitioner cannot challenge certified Declaration of Results forms while simultaneously seeking to obtain advantage from entries in those same certified forms that favour him where such entries contradict the uncertified forms he relies upon.
Electoral Law — Complaints Resolution — Electoral Commission Powers — Failure to Raise Objection at Tally Centre
Section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act empowers the Electoral Commission and its lower level authorities (Polling and Returning Officers) to resolve complaints at any stage of the electoral process. While failure to raise a complaint at the tally centre does not estop a petitioner from subsequently filing an election petition (as statutory rights cannot be lost by estoppel), such failure means the petitioner loses the opportunity for the Returning Officer to address irregularities in situ by reference to the Report Book, ballot box contents, or by ordering a recount.

Legislation cited (27)

Cases cited (14)

  • Odo Tayebwa v Basajjabalaba Nasser and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 13 of 2021)
  • Halima Nakawungu v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition No. 002 of 2011)
  • Ocen Peter and Another v Ebil Fred (Election Petition Appeal No. 83 of 2016)
  • Tamale Julius Konde v Ssenkubuge Isaac (Election Petition No. 6 of 2016)
  • Amoru and Another v Okello Okello (Election Petition Appeals No. 39 and 95 of 2016)
  • Babu Edward Francis v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition No. 10 of 2002)
  • Runumi Mwesigye Francis v The Returning Officer Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition No. 2 of 2002)
  • Griffiths v Davies [1943] KB 618
  • Income Tax Commissioner v A.K. (1964) EA 648
  • Seruwagi Kavuma v Barclays Bank (U) Ltd (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 634 of 2010)
  • Nehawu Obo Tumuna Vs. Commissioner for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration & Ors Case No. PI 15/08 (S. Africa)
  • Kakooza John Baptist v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2007)
  • Mashate Magomu Peter v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 477 of 2016)
  • Dhalay v Republic [1996] eKLR 514

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kayanja v Rulinda and Another (Election Petition No. 14 of 2021) [2023] UGHCCD 7 (20 April 2023)
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.