Wakilii

Nakwang v Akello (Election Petition Appeal 80 of 2016)

Court of Appeal · [2017] UGCA 139 · 2017 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First appeal to the Court of Appeal from a High Court judgment annulling a parliamentary election
Decision
Appeal dismissed; High Court annulment of the appellant's election upheld and fresh elections to be held

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 dismissed the appeal against the annulment of the appellant's election as woman MP for Kaabong District. While it found the trial Judge erred in not expunging 24 late affidavits filed without leave and relying on some, this error affected only the assault/intimidation findings (which the trial Judge had dismissed) and did not vitiate the trial. On the decisive bribery findings, the Court held the trial Judge properly evaluated largely unchallenged affidavit evidence and correctly concluded that bribery at several locations was proved to the required standard. One credible witness suffices to prove a fact; no multiplicity of incidents is required to annul an election.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; High Court annulment of the appellant's election upheld and fresh elections to be held

Facts

In the 18 February 2016 general election, the appellant, the respondent and a third candidate contested the Kaabong District woman Member of Parliament seat. The Electoral Commission returned the appellant as winner with 19,460 votes, against the respondent's 19,344 votes. The appellant was declared winner on 19 February 2016 and gazetted on 3 March 2016. The respondent petitioned the High Court at Soroti alleging irregularities, non-compliance with the law and electoral offences, including bribery and assault. The respondent filed 24 affidavits after pleadings closed, though only one extra affidavit had been allowed. At trial, counsel for both parties agreed to shorten proceedings, abandon cross-examination and proceed by written submissions. The High Court found bribery proved at several locations attributable to the appellant, annulled the election and ordered fresh elections, while dismissing the assault and intimidation allegations as unproved. The appellant appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the appellant was denied a fair hearing when the trial Judge admitted 24 late affidavits without leave and relied on some of them without affording the appellant opportunity to reply or cross-examine.
  2. Whether the trial Judge properly evaluated the evidence and was justified in finding the offence of bribery proved to the required standard against the appellant.
  3. Whether the trial Judge erred in finding the conduct of the appellant's supporters constituted an electoral offence under section 80 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
  4. Whether the petition could be allowed where allegations of assault and bribery were said to have failed.

Orders

  • Ground one partially succeeds to the extent that the trial Judge did not expunge the 24 late affidavits and relied on some.
  • Ground three dismissed.
  • Ground four dismissed as misconceived.
  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Orders of the lower Court upheld.

Rules and key headnotes

Election Petitions — Late Affidavits — Duty to Expunge Material Filed Without Leave
Where affidavits are filed late and without leave of court after the closure of pleadings, and the opposing party is not afforded an opportunity to reply or cross-examine, the trial court should expunge such affidavits from the record, and reliance on them is an error prejudicial to that party.
Election Petitions — Procedural Irregularity — Whether Error Vitiates Trial
A procedural error in admitting and relying on inadmissible affidavits does not vitiate the entire trial where those affidavits bore only on an issue resolved against the petitioner and had no bearing on the final outcome.
Proof of Electoral Offences — Sufficiency — Single Credible Witness
There is no specific number of witnesses required to prove a given fact; even one credible witness can prove a case, and a multiplicity of incidents of bribery is not required to annul an election.
Affidavit Evidence — Unchallenged Testimony and General Denials
Affidavit evidence that is not rebutted or cross-examined remains largely unchallenged, and a bare general denial is insufficient to displace it; a trial court may properly believe unchallenged affidavit evidence over general denials.
Bribery — Proof to Required Standard under Parliamentary Elections Act s.68
An offence of bribery under section 68 of the Parliamentary Elections Act is established where credible evidence shows money or items were given to registered voters with intent to influence their vote in favour of a candidate; proof of one such incident attributable to the candidate may suffice to annul the election.
First Appeal — Duty to Re-evaluate Evidence
On a first appeal the Court of Appeal is required to re-evaluate the evidence adduced at trial and draw its own inferences of law and fact, bearing in mind that it did not see and hear the witnesses.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (6)

  • Adoa and Electoral Commission v Alaso (Election Petition Appeal No. 54 of 2016)
  • Kifamunte Henry v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1997)
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Begumisa and Others v Tibebaga (Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2002)
  • Kikulukunya Faisal v Muwanga Kivumbi Mohammed (Election Petition Appeal No. 44 of 2011)
  • Besigye v Museveni and Another (Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nakwang v Akello (Election Petition Appeal 80 of 2016) [2017] UGCA 139 (15 June 2017)
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.