Wakilii

Shukla v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition Application No. 340 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCCD 113 · 2021 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for leave to amend an election petition, arising from Election Petition No. 09 of 2021, opposed by preliminary objections
Decision
Application struck out with costs to the respondents

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

Held that an election petition cannot be amended after filing. The Parliamentary Elections Act and rules do not provide for amendment of petitions. Rule 17 of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Rules, which allows reference to the Civil Procedure Act, applies only to the trial of petitions, not to pre-trial amendments. Rule 19, which provides for enlargement or abridgement of time, applies only to time set by the rules, not by the Act itself. The court has no inherent power to extend or abridge time set by statute. Application struck out with costs.

Outcome

Application struck out with costs to the respondents

Facts

The applicant filed an election petition (Election Petition No. 09 of 2021) and subsequently brought an application under Rule 19 of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Rules seeking leave to amend the petition. The application was supported by the applicant's affidavit and opposed by both respondents. At the hearing, counsel for the second respondent raised three preliminary objections: that the application did not disclose particulars of the parties; that the annexures were not properly marked and serialised as required by the Commissioner for Oaths Rules; and that there is no law providing for amendment of an election petition. The court heard submissions from all parties on these preliminary objections.

Issues

  1. Whether the application offends the rules of procedure in as far as the particulars of the parties are not indicated.
  2. Whether the annexures to the affidavit in support of application are properly before the court.
  3. Whether the court has power to allow an amendment to an election petition.

Orders

  • The annexures to the affidavit are expunged from the court record for non-compliance with Rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules.
  • The application for leave to amend the election petition is struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Amendment of Petition — Whether Permissible
The Parliamentary Elections Act and the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Rules do not provide for amendment of an election petition after filing. Once a petition has been filed, the journey towards its final determination commences and should be uninterrupted. An amendment, which could interrupt the expeditious trial of an election petition, is not specifically provided for in the Constitution, the Parliamentary Elections Act, or the rules thereunder.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Application of Civil Procedure Rules — Scope
Rule 17 of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Rules, which provides that the practice and procedure of a petition shall be regulated in accordance with the Civil Procedure Act and rules, applies only to the trial or hearing of petitions. It does not extend to pre-trial applications such as applications to amend. Amendment is not part of the trial process.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Enlargement of Time — Limits on Court's Power
Rule 19 of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Rules, which provides for enlargement or abridgement of time, applies only to time appointed by the rules for doing any act. It cannot be used to enlarge or abridge time set by the Parliamentary Elections Act itself. The court has no inherent or residual power to extend or abridge time set by statute for taking a step or doing an act.
Civil Procedure — Affidavits — Annexures — Sealing and Marking Requirements
Under Rule 8 of the Commissioner for Oaths Rules, all exhibits to affidavits must be securely sealed to the affidavits under the seal of the Commissioner for Oaths and marked with a serial number. This requirement is mandatory. Failure to comply presupposes that the deponent did not appear before the commissioner of oaths. Annexures that do not comply with this requirement must be expunged.
Constitutional Law — Article 126(2)(e) — Substantive Justice — Limits
Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, which provides for administering substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities, has not done away with the requirement that litigants must comply with rules of procedure. The article gives constitutional force to the principle that rules of procedure act as handmaidens of justice, but it must be applied subject to the law. It is not a magic wand in the hands of defaulting litigants.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (9)

  • Samuel Kayuki v Israel Katabika and 2 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 402 of 2016)
  • Godfrey Ssentongo v David Barya Katumba (Miscellaneous Application No. 164 of 2016)
  • Kyagulanyi Robert Sentamu v Yoweri Kaguta Museveni Tibuhaburwa and 2 Others (Supreme Court Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2021)
  • Wanyoto Lydia Mutende v Electoral Commission and Nakayenze Connie Galiwango (Miscellaneous Application No. 179 of 2021)
  • Conform Uganda Limited v Mega Industries Uganda Limited (Miscellaneous Application No. 1084 of 2014)
  • Baryaija Julius v Kikwisire Zaverio and Another (Court of Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 324 of 2016)
  • Mulindwa George William v Kisubika Joseph (Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 12 of 2014)
  • Kasirye Byaruhanga & Co. Advocates v Uganda Development Bank (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 2 of 1997)
  • Utex Industries v Attorney General (Supreme Court Civil Application No. 52 of 1995)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Shukla v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition Application No. 340 of 2021) [2021] UGHCCD 113 (15 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.