Wakilii

Sekabira Herbert v Electoral Commission (Election Appeal 10 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 281 · 2021 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Appeal from Electoral Commission decision disqualifying appellant as candidate for District Persons with Disabilities Councilor
Decision
Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

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 an appeal challenging the Electoral Commission's disqualification of a candidate for District Persons with Disabilities Councilor. The court held that once the Electoral Commission directed the Returning Officer to declare the rival candidate unopposed, jurisdiction shifted to the Chief Magistrate's Court under s.138(2) of the Local Government Act. The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the rival candidate had not yet been declared unopposed.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Facts

Sekabira Herbert was disqualified by the Electoral Commission as a candidate for Councilor for Persons with Disabilities for Luwero District. He appealed to the High Court under s.15 of the Electoral Commission Act, seeking declarations that the Electoral Commission's proceedings violated natural justice. The Electoral Commission raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was incompetent because the rival candidate, Mulema, had been directed to be declared unopposed, concluding the electoral process. The Electoral Commission argued that jurisdiction now lay with the Chief Magistrate's Court under s.138(2) of the Local Government Act. The appellant contended that there was no proof the rival candidate had actually been declared unopposed, only a letter directing the Returning Officer to make such declaration.

Issues

  1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under s.15 of the Electoral Commission Act after a rival candidate has been declared unopposed.
  2. Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proving that the rival candidate had not yet been declared unopposed by the Returning Officer.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Each party to bear its own costs in Miscellaneous Application No. 280 of 2021.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Jurisdiction — Appeals from Electoral Commission — Effect of Declaration of Unopposed Candidate
Once the Electoral Commission directs a Returning Officer to declare a candidate unopposed, the electoral process is concluded at that stage and jurisdiction to challenge the outcome shifts from the High Court under s.15 of the Electoral Commission Act to the Chief Magistrate's Court under s.138(2) of the Local Government Act.
Evidence — Burden of Proof — Standard of Proof on Balance of Probabilities
A party who asserts that a particular state of affairs exists bears the burden of proving it on a balance of probabilities. Where the evidence leaves the court in doubt, the party with the burden of proof will not have satisfied the court.
Civil Procedure — Preliminary Objections — Jurisdiction — Proof of Facts Supporting Objection
Where a respondent raises a preliminary objection on grounds that a rival candidate has been declared unopposed, thereby ousting the court's jurisdiction, and the appellant relies on a directive to the Returning Officer but produces no evidence that the directive has not been complied with, the court will not assume non-compliance without evidence and will uphold the preliminary objection.

Legislation cited (5)

Cases cited (3)

  • Byanyima Winnie v Ngoma Ngime (CR No. 9 of 2001)
  • Jovelyn Barugahare v Attorney General (SCCA No. 28 of 1993)
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Sekabira Herbert v Electoral Commission (Election Appeal 10 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 281 (10 May 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.