Wakilii

Nanyanzi Saida and The Electoral Commission v Andera Elizabeth (Election Petition 2 of 2023)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCD 125 · 2025 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Chief Magistrate's Court judgment in an election petition challenging the return of a Female Youth Councilor
Decision
Appeal dismissed; lower court judgment declaring Andera Elizabeth the validly elected Female Youth Councilor for Makindye Division upheld

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 appeal and upheld the Chief Magistrate's judgment setting aside the election of Nanyanzi Saida as Female Youth Councilor for Makindye Division. The court found that the respondent Andera Elizabeth was validly nominated, that the elections were conducted in non-compliance with electoral laws (including mixing of ballot papers from two polling stations, voters voting where not registered, and lack of transparency in counting), and that these irregularities affected the results substantially. The court admitted video evidence and a recount form from 10 February 2021 showing Andera as the winner with 363 votes.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed; lower court judgment declaring Andera Elizabeth the validly elected Female Youth Councilor for Makindye Division upheld

Facts

Andera Elizabeth and Nanyanzi Saida contested for Female Youth Councilor for Makindye Division in elections held on 12 January 2021. Initial results showed Nanyanzi winning with 362 votes and Andera with 337 votes. Andera petitioned, alleging irregularities including voters from Makindye West being directed to vote at Makindye East, mixing of ballot papers from two polling stations, and lack of transparency in counting. She requested a recount which was conducted on 10 February 2021 by the Returning Officer, showing Andera with 363 votes and Nanyanzi with 353 votes. However, the Electoral Commission gazetted Nanyanzi as winner on 22 April 2021 based on results dated 13 February 2021. The Chief Magistrate's Court found non-compliance with electoral laws and declared Andera the winner. Nanyanzi and the Electoral Commission appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the learned trial magistrate erred in finding that the respondent was validly nominated for the position of female Youth Councilor for Makindye Division.
  2. Whether the learned trial magistrate failed to properly appraise the law on admissibility of evidence thereby erroneously admitting evidence.
  3. Whether the learned trial magistrate failed to analyse and evaluate the evidence on record thereby reaching the wrong conclusion that the respondent was the validly elected candidate for the position of female Youth Councilor for Makindye Division.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Judgment and orders of the lower court upheld.
  • Appellant Nanyanzi to pay the respondent Andera costs of the appeal and in the lower court.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Nomination — Challenge to Nomination — Procedure — Failure to Raise Pre-Election Complaint
A party who has grievances with a candidate's nomination and fails to explore the provisions of section 15(1) of the Electoral Commission Act by filing a written complaint before the election is subsequently estopped from raising such issues after the elections.
Electoral Law — Election Irregularities — Non-Compliance with Electoral Laws — Mixing of Ballot Papers — Effect on Results
Where a presiding officer presides over two polling stations, directs voters to vote where they are not registered, and mixes ballot papers from both polling stations contrary to section 132(1) of the Local Government Act which requires votes to be counted at each polling station separately, such non-compliance constitutes irregularities that affect the election results in a substantial manner.
Evidence — Electronic Evidence — Video Recording — Admissibility — Authentication under Electronic Transactions Act
Before admitting electronic evidence, the court must determine its relevance, authenticity, and whether it is hearsay. Under section 8(2) of the Electronic Transactions Act, the burden lies on the person seeking to introduce electronic evidence to prove its authenticity by showing that the information has integrity from when it was first generated and has remained complete and unaltered.
Evidence — Secondary Evidence — Documents — Refusal by Party to Certify Documents — Admissibility
Under section 64(1)(a) of the Evidence Act, secondary evidence may be given when the original document is in the possession or power of the person against whom it is sought to be proved and that person, after notice, does not produce it. Where a party requests certification of a document from the Electoral Commission and the Commission deliberately declines without justification, the party cannot be faulted for presenting an uncertified document.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Burden and Standard of Proof — Proving Non-Compliance
The burden and standard of proof in an election petition lies upon the petitioner who is required to prove every allegation contained in the petition to the satisfaction of the court. Where the petitioner alleges that results declared by the Electoral Commission are false, the onus is on the petitioner to prove the contrary as the gazetted results are prima facie correct.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (3)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Nanyanzi Saida and The Electoral Commission v Andera Elizabeth (Election Petition 2 of 2023) [2025] UGHCCD 125 (15 August 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.