Wakilii

Nambi Faridah Kigongo v Luyimbazi Elias Nalukoola and Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 58 · 2025 Petition Granted — Election Set Aside AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition challenging parliamentary by-election result
Decision
Election set aside, seat declared vacant, fresh election ordered

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 set aside the election of Luyimbazi Elias Nalukoola as Member of Parliament for Kawempe Division North constituency on two grounds: first, 16,640 voters were disenfranchised when the Electoral Commission failed to count, declare and tally results from 14 polling stations where violence disrupted vote counting, affecting the result in a substantial manner; second, the 1st respondent personally campaigned on election day at two polling stations in violation of section 100 of the Parliamentary Elections Act. The court declared the seat vacant and ordered a fresh election.

Outcome

Election set aside, seat declared vacant, fresh election ordered

Facts

On 13 March 2025, the Electoral Commission conducted a parliamentary by-election for Kawempe Division North constituency. Luyimbazi Elias Nalukoola was declared winner with 17,939 votes against Nambi Faridah Kigongo's 9,058 votes. The constituency had 199,063 registered voters but only 28,659 voted (14.40% turnout). The petitioner alleged non-compliance with electoral law and election offences. Violence and chaos disrupted vote counting at 14 polling stations with 16,640 registered voters, and the Electoral Commission failed to transmit results from these stations. The Electoral Commission nevertheless declared the result. The petitioner also alleged that the 1st respondent personally campaigned on election day at two polling stations. The 1st respondent defended his victory, arguing that even excluding the 14 polling stations, he would have won based on voting patterns. The Electoral Commission admitted 0% return from the 14 polling stations but claimed violence made it impossible to count votes and that electoral materials were destroyed.

Issues

  1. Whether there was an illegal practice or any other offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act committed in connection with the election by the 1st respondent personally or with his knowledge and consent or approval.
  2. Whether there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act and if so, whether the non-compliance affected the result of the election in a substantial manner.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • The election of Luyimbazi Elias Nalukoola as Directly Elected Member of Parliament for Kawempe Division North constituency in Kampala District is set aside.
  • The seat for the Directly Elected Member of Parliament for Kawempe Division North constituency in Kampala District is declared vacant.
  • The Electoral Commission is ordered to conduct a fresh election for the Directly Elected Member of Parliament for Kawempe Division North constituency in Kampala District.
  • Each party shall meet its own costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Disenfranchisement — Failure to Count and Tally Votes — Effect on Election Result
Where the Electoral Commission fails to count, declare and tally results from polling stations due to violence, and proceeds to declare the election result without those results, voters at those polling stations are disenfranchised in violation of their constitutional right to vote under Article 59(1) of the Constitution. If the number of disenfranchised voters is sufficient to put the winning margin in doubt, the non-compliance affects the result of the election in a substantial manner and the election must be set aside.
Electoral Law — Election Offences — Campaigning on Polling Day — Personal Commission by Candidate
Section 100 of the Parliamentary Elections Act prohibits candidates from campaigning and canvassing for votes on polling day. Where a candidate personally campaigns on polling day by chanting party slogans and urging voters to vote for him at polling stations, he commits an election offence sufficient to set aside the election result under section 80(1)(c) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
Electoral Law — Electoral Commission Duties — Postponement of Polling or Vote Counting — Violence and Riot
Under sections 64 and 76 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, where voting or vote counting is interrupted by riot or violence, the Electoral Commission has a duty to adjourn the polling or counting to the next day and keep electoral materials in safe custody. The Electoral Commission's failure to exercise this power and instead omitting results from affected polling stations constitutes non-compliance with the law.
Electoral Law — Burden of Proof — Election Offences by Agents — Knowledge and Consent of Candidate
To establish that a candidate is liable for election offences committed by agents, the petitioner must prove two things: first, that an election offence was committed; and second, that the offence was committed with the candidate's knowledge and consent or approval. Proof that agents committed offences without proof of the candidate's knowledge and consent is insufficient to set aside the election on this ground.
Electoral Law — Substantial Effect on Result — Test — Winning Margin Put in Doubt
The phrase 'non-compliance affected the result of the election in a substantial manner' means that the votes obtained by candidates would have been different in a substantial manner. The petitioner does not have to prove that the declared candidate would have lost; it is sufficient to prove that the winning majority would have been significantly reduced so as to put the victory in doubt.
Evidence — Affidavit Evidence — Hearsay — Disclosure of Source — Supporting Affidavits
Where a deponent discloses the source of information in an affidavit and the persons giving the information file their own affidavits in support, the affidavit is admissible and not hearsay. Failure to disclose the source of information renders an affidavit inadmissible, but disclosure coupled with supporting affidavits from the sources cures the hearsay objection.
Electoral Law — Evidence — Photographs as Proof of Bribery — Authentication Requirement
Where a party adduces photographs as evidence of bribery, the photographs must be authenticated. A witness who claims to have taken photographs on a mobile phone but fails to produce the phone for verification, and whose testimony contains contradictions about when she left a WhatsApp group from which the photographs may have been obtained, fails to authenticate the photographs. Unauthenticated photographs are inadmissible to prove election offences.

Legislation cited (34)

Cases cited (17)

  • Chebrot Stephen Chemoiko v Soyekwo Kenneth and Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 56 of 2016)
  • Muhindo Rehema v Winfred Kizza and Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 29 of 2011)
  • Sentamu Betty v Nayebare Sylvia and Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 14 of 2023)
  • Fred Turyamuhweza v Muhwezi Jim Katugugu (Election Petition Appeal No. 71 of 2021)
  • Byamukama James v Kaija William and Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 9 of 2006)
  • Paul Mwiru v Igeme Nathan Nabeta Samson and Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 6 of 2011)
  • Attan Okia Moses v Ariko Herbert Edmund Okworo and Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 2 of 2023)
  • Bagala Joyce Ntwatwa v Nabakooba Judith Kalule and Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 68 of 2021)
  • Lanyero Sarah Ocheng and Electoral Commission v Lanyero Molly (Election Petition Appeal No. 32 of 2011)
  • Tubo Christine Nakwang v Akello Rose Lilly (Election Petition Appeal No. 80 of 2016)
  • Attan Moses v Ariko Herbert (Election Petition Appeal No. 7 of 2021 and Election Petition Appeal No. 10 of 2021)
  • Bantalib Issa Taligola v Electoral Commission and Orone Derrick (Election Petition Appeal No. 48 of 2021)
  • Electoral Commission v Mwosuko Jacob (Election Petition Appeal No. 66 of 2021)
  • Apollo Kantinti v Sitenda Sebalu and Independent Electoral Commission (Consolidated Election Petition Appeals No. 31 and 33 of 2016)
  • Betty Muzanira Bamukwatsa v Masiko Winnifred Komuhangi and Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 65 of 2016)
  • Wakayima Musoke Nsereko and Electoral Commission v Kasule Robert Sebunya (Election Petition Appeal No. 50 and 102 of 2016)
  • Okethi Okale v Republic (Criminal Appeal No. 179 of 1964)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nambi Faridah Kigongo v Luyimbazi Elias Nalukoola and Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 58 (26 May 2025)
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.