Wakilii

Mulisa Bashir v National Unity Platform and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 234 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 13 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking certiorari to quash political party's candidate selection decision
Decision
Application dismissed for failure to exhaust internal party remedies

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. 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 application for judicial review challenging a political party's candidate selection decision. The court held that the applicant failed to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanisms established under the National Unity Platform's constitution before invoking the court's supervisory jurisdiction. The court emphasised that judicial review is a remedy of last resort and that candidate selection decisions are internal to political parties, raising political rather than justiciable legal questions.

Outcome

Application dismissed for failure to exhaust internal party remedies

Facts

The applicant, a registered member of the National Unity Platform (NUP), sought judicial review of the party's decision to issue a party card to the second respondent for the position of Lord Councillor, Makindye II East, in the 2025 general elections. The applicant alleged that he was vetted on 30 July 2025 within the official window, while the second respondent was vetted on 17 August 2025, after the vetting period had closed. The applicant claimed the second respondent had initially expressed interest in a parliamentary seat, not the councillor position, and could not have satisfied the party's 60% community engagement requirement. The applicant filed a complaint with the party's Secretary General on 25 August 2025, which he alleged was ignored. The first respondent opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had not exhausted internal party dispute resolution mechanisms and that the second respondent emerged as the superior candidate based on vetting and ground surveys.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicant exhausted internal dispute resolution mechanisms before seeking judicial review.
  2. Whether the first respondent's decision to issue a party card to the second respondent was irrational.
  3. Whether the first respondent committed procedural impropriety in the candidate selection process.
  4. Whether the court has jurisdiction to review internal political party candidate selection decisions.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Exhaustion of Internal Remedies — Mandatory Requirement
An applicant seeking judicial review must first exhaust all existing and available remedies within the relevant institution or decision-making body before invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the court, as judicial review is a remedy of last resort.
Administrative Law — Exhaustion of Remedies — Rationale and Objectives
The doctrine of exhaustion of internal remedies serves to conserve judicial resources, allows specialized bodies to address errors internally using their institutional expertise, and respects the autonomy and self-regulatory capacity of institutions, particularly political parties.
Electoral Law — Political Parties — Internal Candidate Selection
The selection, nomination, or vetting of candidates for elective office lies within the exclusive preserve and jurisdiction of the political party concerned, and courts are loath to interfere with such decisions or dictate who should be selected to contest an election on a party's behalf.
Judicial Review — Scope — Political Questions versus Justiciable Issues
Internal political party candidate selection decisions raise political questions rather than legal ones and are not amenable to adjudication by a court of law, as they fall outside the province of judicial determination and are internal to the party's governance structures.
Judicial Review — Premature Applications — Insufficient Proof of Exhaustion
Where an applicant files a single complaint with a party official and rushes to court within five days without demonstrating consistent follow-up, proof of escalation, or that internal remedies were futile or unavailable, the application is premature and procedurally improper.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (12)

  • Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Others [2008] 2 EA 300
  • Balondemu David v Law Development Centre (Miscellaneous Cause No. 61 of 2016)
  • Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
  • Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 374
  • Wamala Abdu v Commissioner Land Registration (Miscellaneous Cause No. 16 of 2021)
  • Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223
  • Twinomuhangi v Kabale District and Others [2006] HCB 130
  • Niwabine Jossy and 22 Others v NRM (Miscellaneous Cause No. 143 of 2022)
  • Okello v Kyambogo University and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 23 of 2017)
  • Semwanga Godfrey and 31 Others v Democratic Party (Miscellaneous Cause No. 59 of 2020)
  • Sewanyana Jimmy v Kampala International University (HCMC No. 207 of 2016)
  • Hon. Patrick C. Onuoha V. Chief R.B.K. Okafor Chairman N.P.P. & Ors SC.59/1983

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.

Mulisa Bashir v National Unity Platform and Another (Miscellaneous Cause No. 234 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 13 (12 January 2026)
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.