Wakilii

Kwoba v Ssebugwawo (Election Petition Appeal No. 108 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2019] UGCA 2127 · 2019 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Second appeal from a High Court decision on a local government council election petition
Decision
Appeal dismissed save for part of ground 1; first appellate court's decision upheld and respondent confirmed validly elected

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 Court of Appeal held that section 172 of the Local Governments Act applies only to the conduct of elections by the Electoral Commission and does not import the Parliamentary Elections Act into local council election petitions, so the first appellate Judge misdirected herself in applying that Act. However, since both statutes prescribe the same standard of proof — proof to the satisfaction of the court on a balance of probabilities — the ultimate decision was unaffected. The court further held that accomplice evidence of a person allegedly bribed requires independent corroboration, and that bribery was not proved because no agency link between the alleged briber and the respondent was established. Appeal succeeded only on part of ground 1.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed save for part of ground 1; first appellate court's decision upheld and respondent confirmed validly elected

Facts

The appellant, respondent and others contested the seat of directly elected Councilor for Kazo-Angola Parish, Kawempe North Constituency, in the Local Government Elections held on 2 March 2016. The Electoral Commission declared the respondent the winner with 1,193 votes against the appellant's 585 votes. The appellant petitioned the Chief Magistrate's Court of Nabweru alleging voter bribery, and the magistrate declared the respondent invalidly elected and ordered him to vacate the seat. The respondent appealed to the High Court, which set aside the magistrate's judgment and declared him validly elected. The appellant then brought this second appeal. The bribery allegation rested on the affidavit of Luyombya, who claimed to have received 10,000 shillings from Mulumba Mathius, said to be the respondent's brother, and on Ssemakula's claim that the respondent distributed cement and money. The respondent denied that Mulumba was his agent or acting with his knowledge or consent.

Issues

  1. Whether the first appellate Judge erred in applying the Parliamentary Elections Act and Rules to a local government council election petition and thereby set a wrong standard of proof.
  2. Whether the first appellate court erred in faulting the trial magistrate for relying on unchallenged evidence and in holding that the appellant's affidavit evidence required corroboration.
  3. Whether the first appellate court properly re-evaluated the evidence and correctly found that voter bribery was not proved.

Orders

  • The Judgment of the first appellate Court is upheld.
  • The respondent was validly elected as Councilor for Kazo-Angola Parish, Kawempe North Constituency, Kawempe Division, Kampala District.
  • Costs of this appeal and those in the lower courts are awarded to the respondent.
  • Costs of Miscellaneous Application No. 16 of 2017 and Election Petition Application No. 18 of 2017 shall be borne by each party.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Local Government Council Elections — Applicability of the Parliamentary Elections Act under section 172 of the Local Governments Act
Section 172 of the Local Governments Act permits only the Electoral Commission to apply the Presidential Elections Act and the Parliamentary Elections Act in the conduct of elections, and does not make those Acts applicable to the trial of local government council election petitions or appeals.
Electoral Law — Standard of Proof — Election Petitions
The standard of proof in election petitions, whether presidential, parliamentary or local government council, is proof to the satisfaction of the court on a balance of probabilities, being a high civil standard that varies with the gravity of the matter but falls short of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Electoral Law — Voter Bribery — Elements and Proof
To prove voter bribery a petitioner must establish that a gift was given to a registered voter by a candidate or the candidate's agent, with the intention of influencing the vote and with the candidate's knowledge, consent or approval.
Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Need for Corroboration
The evidence of a person who was a willing participant in an alleged bribery transaction is accomplice evidence to be treated with caution and requires independent corroboration before it can found a finding that an illegal practice was committed.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Election Petitions
The burden of proof in an election petition lies on the petitioner who seeks to have the respondent's election annulled and set aside, and it is not shifted to the respondent to disprove the allegation.
Civil Procedure — Second Appeal — Concurrent Findings of Fact
A second appellate court will not re-evaluate the evidence as a first appellate court is required to do, and may interfere with concurrent findings of fact only where the lower courts were wrong or applied wrong principles of law.
Civil Procedure — Extension of Time — Mistake of Counsel
Where an applicant has exercised due diligence in prosecuting an appeal, the inadvertence of counsel in personal conduct of the case in failing to serve the record of appeal in time may constitute sufficient cause for extension of time under rule 5 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (13)

  • Peter Odok W'oceng v Markly Vicent Ojidid & 4 Others (Election Petition Application No. 29 of 2011)
  • Makatu Augustus v Weswa David & Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 73 of 2016)
  • Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kiiza Besigye v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta & Electoral Commission (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Mudiobole Abed Nasser v Mugema Peter & Another (Election Petition No. 7 of 2011)
  • Milly Masembe v Sugar Corporation & Another (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2000)
  • Kakooza Godfrey v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2008)
  • Mukasa Harris v Dr. Bayiga Michael Lulume (Election Petition Appeal No. 18 of 2007)
  • Achieng Sarah Opendi v Ochwo Nyakecho Kezia (Election Petition Appeal No. 39 of 2011)
  • Paul Mwiru v Igeme Nathan Nabeta Samson & Others (Election Petition Appeal No. 6 of 2011)
  • Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Nambooze Betty Bakileke (Election Petition Appeal No. 4 of 2009)
  • Fred Badda v Prof. Muyanda Mutebi (Election Petition Appeal No. 21 of 2007)
  • Blyth v Blyth [1966] AC 643
  • Jugnauth v Ringadoo [2008] UKPC 50

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Kwoba v Ssebugwawo (Election Petition Appeal No. 108 of 2016) [2019] UGCA 2127 (17 January 2019)
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.