Wakilii

Ngoma Ngime v The Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition 11 of 2002)

Court of Appeal · [2002] UGCA 32 · 2002 Preliminary Objections Allowed in Part AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Preliminary objections raised at the hearing of an election petition appeal from the High Court at Mbarara
Decision
Preliminary objections allowed in part; grounds 10 and 12 struck out and certain documents expunged from the record of appeal

Observed later treatment

Treatment recorded in citing cases followed in 1 Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

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.

Good law Followed in 1 case and applied in 0 cases, with no adverse treatment recorded. Citations rising — 5 citing cases on record, 4 in the most recent three data years. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

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 partly upheld preliminary objections to an election petition appeal. Applying Sietco v Noble Builders, it held that a memorandum of appeal under rule 85(1) must concisely state the points alleged to have been wrongly decided. Grounds 5, 6, 9, 14 and 16 were sufficiently concise, but grounds 10 and 12 were too generalized and were struck out. On the second objection, the Court held that documents rejected by the trial judge could not be smuggled into the record of appeal merely because rejection of evidence is interlocutory in an election petition, and ordered the offending documents expunged.

Outcome

Preliminary objections allowed in part; grounds 10 and 12 struck out and certain documents expunged from the record of appeal

Facts

The appellant, Ngoma Ngime, appealed against the judgment of the High Court at Mbarara dismissing his election petition concerning the Mbarara Municipality parliamentary elections. When the appeal came for hearing, counsel for the Electoral Commission and for the second respondent (Hon. Winnie Byanyima) raised preliminary objections. They contended that several grounds of the Memorandum of Appeal (5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 16) did not concisely or specifically point out the matters allegedly wrongly decided by the trial judge, contrary to rule 85(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal. The second respondent's counsel also objected that certain documents appearing at page 1100 of the record of appeal had been improperly included, as they were not part of the trial record and had been rejected by the trial judge when tendered in evidence. The appellant argued the grounds were as precise as election petition timelines permitted and that the documents related to his academic qualifications and were relevant.

Issues

  1. Whether grounds 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 16 of the Memorandum of Appeal offended rule 85(1) of the Rules of the Court of Appeal for failing to concisely and specifically state the points wrongly decided.
  2. Whether documents appearing in the record of appeal that were rejected at the trial should be expunged under rule 86 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • Grounds 10 and 12 of the Memorandum of Appeal struck out for offending rule 85(1).
  • Grounds 5, 6, 9, 14 and 16 allowed to stand.
  • The documents appearing on page 1100 of the record of appeal expunged from the record.
  • Preliminary objections allowed in part.

Rules and key headnotes

Appeals — Memorandum of Appeal — Conciseness of Grounds under Rule 85(1)
A memorandum of appeal must set forth concisely and under distinct heads, without argument or narrative, the grounds of objection to the decision appealed against, specifying the points alleged to have been wrongly decided; grounds framed in overly general terms that fail to disclose the gist of the complaint offend rule 85(1) and may be struck out.
Election Petition Appeals — Standard of Precision for Grounds of Appeal
The conciseness required of grounds of appeal depends on the circumstances of each case; because grounds in election petition appeals must be filed within a short statutory period before the record of proceedings is available, the same standard of precision applicable to ordinary civil appeals is not necessarily required.
Record of Appeal — Inclusion of Documents Rejected at Trial — Rule 86
The fact that no appeal lies against an interlocutory ruling rejecting evidence in an election petition does not entitle a party to include the rejected documents in the record of appeal; such improperly included documents may be expunged from the record.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (1)

  • Sietco v Noble Builders (U) Ltd (Civil Appeal No. 31 of 1995)

Cases citing this judgment (5)

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.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Ngoma Ngime v The Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition 11 of 2002) [2002] UGCA 32 (16 September 2002)
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.