Wakilii

Makumbi Kamya Henry v Kaddu Ssozi Mukasa & Anor (Kampala- Election Petition No. 43 of 2011)

High Court · [2011] UGHC 157 · 2011 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition challenging the outcome of parliamentary elections for Mityana South Constituency
Decision
Election petition dismissed; first respondent's election upheld

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 election petition challenging the parliamentary election in Mityana South Constituency. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove that the elections were conducted in violation of electoral law, that any non-compliance affected the result in a substantial manner, or that the first respondent committed illegal practices or election offences. The court found both respondents' answers competent despite procedural objections, holding that the failure to append the registrar's signature and delayed payment of filing fees were curable irregularities. The petition was dismissed with costs to the first respondent.

Outcome

Election petition dismissed; first respondent's election upheld

Facts

The petitioner and first respondent contested for the parliamentary seat of Mityana South Constituency in elections held on 18 February 2011. The first respondent polled 20,611 votes (50.66%) against the petitioner's 19,249 votes (47.32%). The Electoral Commission declared the first respondent winner. The petitioner filed an election petition alleging that the elections were not conducted in compliance with electoral law, that the first respondent committed illegal practices including bribery, and that the Electoral Commission failed to conduct free and fair elections. The petitioner alleged specific instances of voter disenfranchisement at Kitavujja polling station, invalidation of votes, intimidation of agents, bribery at various locations, and malicious statements against his character. A recount was attempted but allegedly disrupted by the first respondent's supporters. Both respondents denied all allegations.

Issues

  1. Whether the answers to the petition are competent
  2. Whether the Parliamentary elections in Mityana South Constituency were conducted in accordance with the law and the principles set out in the Parliamentary Elections Act
  3. Whether the non-compliance affected the results in a substantial manner
  4. Whether the first respondent committed any illegal practice or election offence personally or through his agents with his knowledge and consent or approval
  5. What remedies are available to the parties

Orders

  • Petition dismissed
  • Costs of the petition awarded to the first respondent
  • As between the petitioner and the second respondent each party to bear own costs

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Competence of Answers — Filing Procedures
The requirement under rule 8(2) of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules that an answer shall be filed with the registrar is directory, not mandatory. It does not require the registrar to personally receive and sign the answer. Filing through registry officers acting on behalf of the registrar satisfies the rule, provided the answer is sealed with the official seal and dated.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Court Fees — Non-payment at Time of Filing Answer
The failure to pay the requisite court fee at the time of filing an answer to an election petition is a curable irregularity under section 97 of the Civil Procedure Act. The non-payment of court fees is a minor procedural and technical objection which should not affect the adjudication of substantive justice under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Burden and Standard of Proof
Under section 61(1) and (3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, the petitioner bears the burden of proving allegations to the satisfaction of the court upon the balance of probabilities. However, the petitioner must adduce credible and cogent evidence, with the level of probability being higher than that required in ordinary civil suits.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Non-compliance with Electoral Law — Substantial Effect Test
To establish that non-compliance with electoral law affected the result in a substantial manner, the petitioner must prove either that the winning candidate's votes would have been different in a substantial manner but for the non-compliance (quantitative test), or that the only irresistible inference from the proven non-compliance is that it affected the result substantially (qualitative test). Insignificant non-compliance will not satisfy this requirement.
Electoral Law — Election Offences — Bribery — Elements of Offence
The offence of bribery under section 68(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act has four elements: the respondent gave out money or a gift; the money or gift was given to a registered voter; the giving was to influence the voter to vote or refrain from voting; and the respondent gave the money or gift personally or through agents with his knowledge, consent or approval. All elements must be proved to establish the offence.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Evidence of Bribery — Scrutiny Required
Evidence of bribery in election petitions must be subjected to strict scrutiny and must be cogent and compelling. Where witnesses are supporters or campaigners of the parties, courts will seek corroborating evidence. A nexus must be established between alleged agents and the candidate, showing that acts were done with the candidate's knowledge, consent or approval.
Electoral Law — Election Offences — Malicious Statements — Pleading Requirements
In an election petition alleging false or reckless statements concerning the character of a candidate under section 73(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, the exact words complained of must be set out verbatim in the petition. Failure to plead the statements verbatim renders the pleading fatally defective. The words must be provided in context to enable their allegedly malicious or defamatory effect to be discovered and to allow the respondent to know the case to meet.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (19)

  • Mukasa Anthony Harris v Dr. Bayiga Michael Phillip Lulume (SC Election Petition Appeal No. 18 of 2007)
  • Masiko Winfred Komuhangi v Babihuga J. Winnie (CA Election Petition Appeal No. 1 of 2002)
  • Alcon International Ltd v The New Vision Printing And Publishing Co. Ltd (SC Civil Application No. 4 of 2010)
  • Ssali Godfrey v Uganda Electoral Commission And Kabaale Sulaiman (Election Petition No. 13 of 2011)
  • Utex Industries Ltd v Attorney General (SC Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)
  • Lawrence Muwanga v Stephen Kyeyune (Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2011)
  • Musinguzi Garuga James v Amama Mbabazi & The Electoral Commission (CA Civil Application No. 19 of 2002)
  • Edward Byaruhanga Katumba v Siraje Nkugwa Kizito And The Electoral Commission (CA Election Petition Appeal No. 17 of 2001)
  • Rtd. Col. Kizza Besigye v Electoral Commission And Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)
  • Amoru Paul Omiot v Okot Ogong Felix And The Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2011)
  • Otim Nape George William v Ebil Fred And Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 17 of 2011)
  • Cleaver Hume Ltd v British Tutorial College (Africa) Ltd [1975] EA 323
  • Ssengendo v Attorney General [1972] EA 140
  • Amama Mbabazi and Electoral Commission v Musinguzi Garuga James (Election Petition Appeal No. 12 of 2002)
  • Rtd. Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye v Electoral Commission And Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (SC Election Petition No. 1 of 2006)
  • Collins V Jones (1995) IQB 564
  • Sydenham Vs. Man (1617) Cro. Jac 407
  • DDSA Pharmaceuticals Ltd. V. Times Newspapers Ltd (1973) 1 Q.B. 21 CA
  • S. & K. Holdings Ltd V. Throughmorton Publications Ltd (1972) 1 WlR 1036

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Makumbi Kamya Henry v Kaddu Ssozi Mukasa & Anor (Kampala- Election Petition No. 43 of 2011) [2011] UGHC 157 (2 November 2011)
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.