Wakilii

Oloo v Dr. Lokii and Another (Election Petition No. 6 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCEP 41 · 2021 Preliminary Objections Upheld AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition challenging parliamentary election results, determined on preliminary objections before substantive hearing
Decision
Twenty-nine affidavits struck out on preliminary objections; substantive petition not yet determined

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. 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 struck out 29 affidavits filed in support of and in opposition to the election petition on preliminary objections. Fourteen affidavits by illiterate deponents were struck out for non-compliance with the Oaths Act because the Commissioner for Oaths failed to personally certify that the interpreter had sworn and interpreted the contents before the deponent signed. Eight affidavits by election officials were expunged as illegal because the deponents disclosed information obtained in their official capacity without lawful authority contrary to Parliamentary Elections Act s.7(6). Two affidavits were struck out because the signatures differed obviously from the deponent's signatures on official documents. Five affidavits were expunged for failing to disclose the name of the Commissioner for Oaths.

Outcome

Twenty-nine affidavits struck out on preliminary objections; substantive petition not yet determined

Facts

The petitioner contested for Member of Parliament for Matheniko Constituency in Moroto District in elections held on 14 January 2021. The Electoral Commission declared the first respondent winner with 6,794 votes against the petitioner's 6,602 votes. The petitioner filed an election petition alleging the elections contravened the Parliamentary Elections Act, Electoral Commission Act and Constitution and affected the outcome substantially. Before the substantive hearing, both the first respondent and petitioner raised preliminary objections challenging the legality of affidavits filed by the opposing parties. The first respondent objected to 14 affidavits by illiterate deponents and 8 affidavits by election officials. The petitioner objected to 2 affidavits allegedly sworn by the Returning Officer and 5 affidavits that did not disclose the Commissioner for Oaths' name.

Issues

  1. Whether 14 affidavits sworn by illiterate deponents through an interpreter complied with the mandatory requirements of the Oaths Act and Illiterates Protection Act.
  2. Whether 8 affidavits sworn by election officials contravened Parliamentary Elections Act s.7(6) by disclosing information without lawful authority.
  3. Whether 2 affidavits allegedly sworn by the Returning Officer bore genuine signatures.
  4. Whether 5 affidavits that did not disclose the name of the Commissioner for Oaths met the requirements of law.

Orders

  • The 14 affidavits sworn by illiterate deponents through interpreter Nyeko Moses are struck out for illegality with costs.
  • The 8 affidavits sworn by election officials Longoli Joseph, Lotyang Samuel Suguru, Angiroi Paul, Moru Hellen, Lomongin Moses, Lomomgin Bruno, Lochoro Daniel and Lotee John are expunged with costs.
  • The 2 affidavits allegedly sworn by Loumo Rosemary Okot (Oumo Rose Lily) dated 30 March 2021 and 30 April 2021 are struck off with costs.
  • The 5 affidavits of Ssire Mark, Nangiro Moses, Lotee George William, Locoro Daniel, and Lokeris Basil are struck off with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Affidavits — Illiterate Deponents — Oaths Act Form E Requirements
Where an affidavit is sworn by an illiterate deponent through an interpreter, the Commissioner for Oaths must personally certify in the jurat that the interpreter was first sworn and then interpreted the contents of the affidavit to the deponent before the deponent signed or affixed a mark, and this certification must appear on the face of the document before the Commissioner signs.
Evidence — Affidavits — Illiterate Deponents — Non-Compliance with Mandatory Requirements
Non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the Oaths Act and Illiterates Protection Act in the making of affidavits by illiterate deponents is incurable and cannot be remedied by Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution or Section 43 of the Interpretation Act, as the safeguards are essential to protect illiterates from manipulation and ensure the integrity and veracity of the translation.
Electoral Law — Election Officials — Disclosure of Information — Parliamentary Elections Act s.7(6)
An election official who discloses to any person any matter that came to his or her knowledge as a result of the appointment without lawful authority commits an offense under Parliamentary Elections Act s.7(6), and affidavits based on such unauthorized disclosure are tainted with illegality and inadmissible, as the provision is intended to protect the integrity of the electoral process and maintain the impartiality of election officials.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Statutory Interpretation — Substantive Requirements
Procedures set down in the Parliamentary Elections Act are special and must be followed strictly, and failure to comply should not be taken lightly, as the Act enacts substantive legal requirements and non-compliance is not a mere technicality but goes to the root of the matter.
Evidence — Affidavits — Identity of Deponent — Signature Verification
Where differences in signatures on affidavits compared to signatures on official documents are so obvious to the naked eye, the only logical conclusion is that the signatures belong to different people, and such affidavits should be treated with suspicion as inherently unreliable with no probative value, without requiring expert handwriting evidence.
Evidence — Affidavits — Jurat Requirements — Commissioner for Oaths Identification
The jurat on an affidavit must state the name of the Commissioner for Oaths, the date and place where the jurat is made, and a court seal accompanied only by a signature without the name and title of the person who commissioned the affidavit is insufficient to meet the requirements of law.
Civil Procedure — Illegality — Court's Duty
A court cannot sanction what is illegal, and illegality supersedes all other considerations raised by the parties, as it is trite law that courts are enjoined not to look the other way when an illegality has been brought to their attention.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (12)

  • Mugema Peter v Mudiobole (Election Petition No. 16 of 2016)
  • Kasala Growers Cooperative Society v Kakooza Jonathan and Kalemera Edson (SCCA No. 19 of 2010)
  • Plan Virginia Mugyenyi v Hon Tumwesigye Elioda and the Electoral Commission (Mbarara Election Petition No. 1 of 2018)
  • Asea John Bosco Ozuma v Tumwesigye Deo Mbabazi and Another (Jinja Election Petition No. 22 of 2016)
  • Violet Nakiwala and 2 Others v Rwekibira and Another (HCCS No. 280 of 2006)
  • Namujju Dionizia Cissy and the Electoral Commission v Martin Kizito Sserwanga (Election Appeal No. 62 of 2016)
  • Makula International Ltd v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga and Rev Fr. Dr. Kyeyune (CACA No. 4 of 1981)
  • Ndaula Ronald v Haji Nadduli Abdul (Election Appeal No. 20 of 2006)
  • Muyanja Simon Lutaaya v Kenneth Lubogo (Election Petition Appeal No. 82 of 2016)
  • Doctor Bayiga Michael Phillip Lulume v Mutebi and Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 14 of 2016)
  • V R Kamath vs Divisional Controller AIR 1997 Kant 275
  • Alice Asianut Alaso v EC and Hellen Odoa (Election Petition No. 5 of 2016)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Oloo v Dr. Lokii and Another (Election Petition No. 6 of 2021) [2021] UGHCEP 41 (2 September 2021)
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.