Wakilii

Kuranga v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition No. 23 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCEP 18 · 2021 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition challenging the declaration of the 2nd respondent as winner of the Mbale City Industrial Division Chairperson/Mayor election held on 25 January 2021
Decision
Petition dismissed with costs to the respondents

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 election petition challenging the Mbale City Industrial Division Chairperson/Mayor election. The petitioner failed to prove allegations of falsification of results, bribery, and multiple voting to the required standard. The court struck out the 2nd respondent's supporting affidavits for non-compliance with the Illiterates Protection Act. The petitioner's reliance on uncertified Declaration of Results Forms was inadmissible. The court held that no non-compliance with electoral laws was established and that the election results reflected the will of the electorate.

Outcome

Petition dismissed with costs to the respondents

Facts

The petitioner contested as a candidate for Mbale City Industrial Division Chairperson/Mayor in elections held on 25 January 2021. The Electoral Commission gazetted the 2nd respondent as winner on 22 April 2021. The petitioner challenged the election alleging falsification/alteration of results at multiple polling stations, bribery of voters, intimidation, violence, disenfranchisement, and multiple voting. The petitioner relied on original Declaration of Results Forms obtained from presiding officers showing different results from certified copies issued by the Electoral Commission. The 2nd respondent obtained 8,163 votes against the petitioner's 3,647 votes, a margin of over 4,000 votes. The petitioner sought nullification of the election and orders for fresh elections.

Issues

  1. Whether the election for Mbale City Industrial Division Chairperson/Mayor was conducted in accordance with electoral laws?
  2. Whether the non-compliance (if any) affected the result of the election in a substantial manner?
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Petition dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st and 2nd respondents.
  • Right of appeal explained.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Affidavits — Illiterate Deponents — Compliance with Illiterates Protection Act and Oaths Act
An affidavit executed on behalf of an illiterate person must bear a jurat by the Commissioner for Oaths certifying that the contents were read over and explained to the deponent in the Commissioner's presence and that the deponent understood the same. A certificate by a translator alone, without the Commissioner's jurat, does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of the Illiterates Protection Act and renders the affidavit inadmissible.
Evidence — Documentary Evidence — Public Documents — Declaration of Results Forms — Certification Requirements
Declaration of Results Forms are public documents within the meaning of section 73(a)(ii) of the Evidence Act and require certification under sections 75 and 76 of the Evidence Act to be admissible. Uncertified photocopies of Declaration of Results Forms annexed to affidavits have no evidential value and cannot be validated merely by being annexed to an affidavit.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Burden and Standard of Proof — Proof of Electoral Malpractice
In election petitions, the burden of proof lies upon the petitioner to prove each allegation of malpractice or non-compliance with electoral laws to the satisfaction of the court on a balance of probabilities. The petitioner must adduce credible and cogent evidence to prove allegations to the required standard. Because of the public importance of election petitions, the facts must be proved to the satisfaction of the court.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Polling Agents — Effect of Agent's Signature on Declaration of Results Forms
When a candidate's polling agent signs a Declaration of Results Form without recording objections, the agent confirms the truth of the contents therein. The candidate is estopped from subsequently challenging the contents of the form because the agent acts as the candidate's representative. An agent who refuses to sign but does not state reasons for refusal as prescribed on the form is also estopped from claiming irregularities.
Electoral Law — Electoral Offences — Bribery — Elements to be Proved
To establish the electoral offence of bribery under section 147 of the Local Governments Act, three elements must be proved: (1) a gift was given to a voter; (2) the gift was given by the candidate or the candidate's agent; and (3) the gift was given with the intention of inducing the person to vote. The recipient must be identified as a registered voter, and evidence must be adduced from the recipient confirming receipt of the bribe.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Substantial Effect on Results — Grounds for Nullification
Under section 139(a) of the Local Governments Act, an election may be nullified where there was failure to conduct the election in accordance with the law and the non-compliance affected the results in a substantial manner. The petitioner must prove that the non-compliance was calculated to influence the result in a significant manner and must show how the winning majority would have been reduced such as to put the victory in doubt.

Legislation cited (25)

Cases cited (33)

  • Nsubuga Sylvest v Kalibala Charles and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 70 of 2016)
  • Winfred Matsiko v Bamukwatsa Betty (Election Petition No. 4 of 2018)
  • Winifred Komuhangi Masika v Bamukwatsa Betty and Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 4 of 2018)
  • Asea John Bosco Ozuma v Tumwesigye Deo Mbabazi and Another (Election Petition No. 22 of 2016)
  • Tikens Francis and Another v Electoral Commission and 2 Others (Election Petition No. 1 of 2012)
  • Yusuf Mutembuli v Magomu and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 43 of 2016)
  • Mbagadi and Another v Dr Nabwiso (Election Petitions No. 14 and 16 of 2011)
  • Tamale Julius Konde v Ssenkabuga Isaac and Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 75 of 2016)
  • Bantalib Issa Taligola v Wasugirya Bob Fred and Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2006)
  • Karazani Charles v Musoke Paul Sebulime and Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 17 of 2016)
  • Maulidi Abdullah Chengo v. Republic [1964] 1 E.A 122
  • R. v. Podmore (2)
  • Hon Kipoi Tonny Nsubuga v Ronny Waluku Wataka and 2 Others (Election Petition Appeal No. 7 of 2011)
  • Mukasa Anthony Harris v Dr Bayiga Michael Phillip Lulume (Election Petition Appeal No. 18 of 2007)
  • Matsiko Winifred Komuhangi v Babihuga J Winnie (Election Petition Appeal No. 9 of 2002)
  • Col (Rtd) Besigye Kizza v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta and Electoral Commission (Petition No. 1 of 2006)
  • Blyth v. Blyth [1966] A.C 643
  • Weswa David v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition No. 21 of 2016)
  • Freda Nanziri Kase Mubanda v Mary Babirye Kabanda and Another (Court of Appeal Election Petition No. 38 of 2016)
  • Kakooza John Baptist v Electoral Commission and Yiga Anthony (Election Petition Appeal No. 11 of 2007)
  • Hon Gagawala Nelson Wambuzi v Electoral Commission and Kenneth Lubogo (Election Petition No. 8 of 2011)
  • Uganda Journalists Safety Commission and Others v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 7 of 1997)
  • Ngoma Ngime v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition No. 11 of 2012)
  • Betty Muzanira Bamukwatsa v Matsiko Winnifred Komuhangi and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 65 of 2016)
  • Chemoiko Chebrot Stephen v Soyekwo Kenneth and Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 56 of 2016)
  • Mashate Magomu Peter v Electoral Commission and Sizomu Gershom Rabbi Wambedde (Election Petition Appeal No. 47 of 2016)
  • Mugisha Vicent v Kajara Aston Peterson and Others (Election Petition No. 11 of 2012)
  • Amoro Paul and Electoral Commission v Okello John Baptist (Election Petition Appeal No. 39 and 95 of 2016)
  • Kabusu Moses Wagaba v Lwanga Timothy and Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 15 of 2011)
  • Isabirye Moses Wagaba v Iwalga Timothy Mutekanga and Electoral Commission (Appeal No. 15 of 2011)
  • Kinyamatama Suubi Juliet v Sentongo Robinah Nakasirye (Election Petition Appeal No. 92 of 2016)
  • Odetta v Omeda (Election Petition No. 1 of 1996)
  • Edward Byaruhunga Katumba v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition No. 17 of 2001)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kuranga v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition No. 23 of 2021) [2021] UGHCEP 18 (8 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.