Wakilii

Nakalyango Fatuma v Electoral Commission (Miscellaneous Cause No. 57 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCD 98 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for judicial review seeking to quash Electoral Commission decision de-nominating applicant from youth councillor election
Decision
Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust statutory appeal remedy

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 judicial review application for lack of jurisdiction. Where the Constitution provides a statutory right of appeal from Electoral Commission decisions on pre-election complaints under Article 64(1), judicial review is not available unless the applicant first exhausts that alternative remedy. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the statutory appeal was ineffective or that exceptional circumstances existed to bypass it. The Constitution delineates the Electoral Commission as the primary forum for pre-poll electoral disputes, with the High Court exercising supervisory appellate jurisdiction rather than original jurisdiction in such matters.

Outcome

Application dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to exhaust statutory appeal remedy

Facts

The applicant was nominated as a candidate for Female Youth Councillor to Luwero District Council. On 6 October 2025, a petition was filed challenging her nomination on grounds that she exceeded the youth age bracket. The Electoral Commission invited her for a hearing on 27 October 2025. On 4 December 2025, the Commission de-nominated her, finding that the National Voter's Register showed she was born on 12 January 1986, making her 39 years old and outside the youth age bracket under the National Youth Council Act. The applicant claimed she had evidence from NIRA showing her date of birth as 12 January 1998, placing her within the youth age bracket, but did not adduce this evidence at the Commission hearing. She filed this judicial review application seeking to quash the de-nomination decision and be declared elected unopposed. The respondent objected that the proper remedy was a statutory appeal under Article 64(1) of the Constitution, not judicial review.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has original jurisdiction to entertain a judicial review application challenging an Electoral Commission decision on a pre-election complaint when a statutory right of appeal exists under Article 64(1) of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the applicant exhausted alternative remedies as required under Rule 7A(b) of the Judicature (Judicial Review) (Amendment) Rules 2019 before seeking judicial review.
  3. Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify granting judicial review despite the availability of a statutory appeal remedy.
  4. Whether the Electoral Commission's decision to de-nominate the applicant was tainted with illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Availability — Alternative Statutory Remedies — Requirement to Exhaust
Judicial review will generally not be available when an alternative remedy by way of appeal has not been exhausted. Where Parliament has provided a statutory appeal route, courts should not undermine that choice by allowing a claimant to proceed instead by way of judicial review.
Electoral Law — Pre-Election Complaints — Jurisdiction — High Court Original vs Appellate Jurisdiction
The Constitution delineates the Electoral Commission as the primary forum for the resolution of pre-poll electoral disputes, with the High Court exercising a supervisory appellate jurisdiction under Article 64(1) rather than original jurisdiction in such matters.
Administrative Law — Judicial Review — Exceptional Circumstances — Discretion to Grant Despite Alternative Remedy
Save in the most exceptional circumstances, the judicial review jurisdiction will not be exercised where other remedies are available and have not been used. An applicant must demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify the court exercising its discretion to grant judicial review despite the existence of an alternative remedy.
Judicial Review — Scope — Review of Decision-Making Process, Not Merits
Judicial review is concerned with reviewing not the merits of the decision in respect of which the application is made, but the decision-making process itself. The purpose is to ensure that the individual is given fair treatment by the authority, not to substitute the opinion of the judiciary for that of the authority charged by law with deciding the matters in question.
Constitutional Law — High Court Jurisdiction — Restriction by Constitution or Act of Parliament
While Article 139 of the Constitution confers unlimited original jurisdiction on the High Court, that jurisdiction can be restricted by either the Constitution itself or an Act of Parliament enacted under the Constitution.

Legislation cited (20)

Cases cited (19)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakalyango Fatuma v Electoral Commission (Miscellaneous Cause No. 57 of 2026) [2026] UGHCCD 98 (31 March 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.