Namuddu Hanifa v Returning Officer, Kampala District and Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 69 of 2006) (Miscellaneous Cause No. 69 of 2006)

Observed later treatment

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.

Holding

The court held that the returning officer and second respondent falsely claimed the recount request covered two polling stations when it originally covered only one. The decision to conduct a second recount at Spidiqua A-K polling station was illegal, irrational, and procedurally improper. Certiorari was granted to quash the recount decision, mandamus issued to declare the applicant the winner based on the first recount results, and prohibition deemed unnecessary.

Outcome

Applicant declared duly elected woman councillor for Kisenyi I Parish based on results after first recount

Facts

The applicant and second respondent were candidates for woman councillor, Kisenyi I Parish, Kampala Central Division, in an election held on 10 March 2006. The initial results showed applicant with 878 votes and second respondent with 877 votes, a margin of one vote. The second respondent requested a recount. The returning officer's letter dated 14 March 2006 stated that the second respondent requested a recount at one polling station only — Chairman's place (Code 3). A recount was conducted at that station on 16 March 2006. Subsequently, the returning officer wrote on 24 March 2006 claiming the second respondent had requested a recount at two polling stations and only one had been done, ordering a second recount at Spidiqua A-K polling station. The applicant sought judicial review to quash this decision.

Issues

1. Whether the second respondent's request for recount covered one or two polling stations.
2. Whether the returning officer's decision to conduct a second recount at Spidiqua A-K polling station was illegal, irrational, or procedurally improper.
3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the prerogative remedies of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition.

Orders

• Application allowed.
• Writ of certiorari issued quashing the decision of the first respondent for a second recount of votes at Spidiqua A-K polling station contained in the letter dated March 24, 2006.
• Mandamus order issued directing the first and third respondents to declare the applicant, Namuddu Hanifa, the duly elected woman councillor for Kisenyi I Parish on the basis of results after the recount at Chairman's place polling station (Code 3) on 16 March 2006.
• Order for prohibition not issued as unnecessary.
• Applicant awarded costs of this application and costs of the application for leave to file the application for judicial review jointly and/or severally against the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (13)

• Judicature Act s.38
• Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules 2003 r.2
• Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules 2003 r.3
• Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules 2003 r.4
• Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules 2003 r.5
• Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules 2003 r.6
• Civil Procedure (Amendment) (Judicial Review) Rules 2003 r.7
• Parliamentary Elections Act 17 of 2005 s.54
• Local Governments Act Cap. 243 s.172
• Local Governments Act Cap. 243 s.135
• Constitution of Uganda Article 61(a)
• Electoral Commission Act Cap. 140 s.30(5)(a)
• Parliamentary Elections Act s.78(g)

Cases cited (7)

• Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] AC 2
• Twinomuhangi Pastoli v Kabale District Local Government Council and Two Others (Miscellaneous Cause No. 152 of 2006)
• Byanyima Winnie v Ngomangime (Civil Revision No. 0009 of 2001)
• In re Bukeni Gyabi Fred (Miscellaneous Cause No. 63 of 1999)
• Re Bukoba Gymkhana Club [1963] EA 478
• Al-Mehdawi v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1990] AC 876
• Gardner v Jay [1885] 29 Ch D 50

Cases citing this judgment (2)

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.

• Ahweera v Attorney General (Misc Cause 102 of 2023)
• Nagujja Sylivia Lutta v The Commissioner Land Registration & Kabira Aisha (Misc Cause 227 of 2023)

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