Wakilii

Tete Chelengat v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 8 of 2022)

Court of Appeal · [2022] UGCA 136 · 2022 Appeal Struck Out AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Three interlocutory applications in an election petition appeal: to extend time to file the memorandum and record of appeal, to strike out the appeal as filed out of time, and to adduce additional evidence
Decision
Extension of time refused, the appeal struck out as incompetent for being filed out of time, and the additional evidence application struck out as moot

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 Court of Appeal held that the special statutory scheme for parliamentary election petition appeals imposes mandatory, separate timelines for filing the memorandum and record of appeal, and that rule 83(2) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules (granting consequential extension for preparation of proceedings) does not apply to such appeals. The applicant deliberately failed to file the memorandum of appeal in time, showing no sufficient cause for extension; the extension application was dismissed and the appeal struck out. The application to adduce additional evidence was dismissed because the back pages of declaration forms were always in the applicant's possession, were uncertified public documents of no evidential value, and counsel's negligence was no sufficient reason.

Outcome

Extension of time refused, the appeal struck out as incompetent for being filed out of time, and the additional evidence application struck out as moot

Facts

The applicant and respondent no.2 contested the seat of Woman Representative of Parliament for Bukwo District in the January 2021 general elections. The Electoral Commission returned respondent no.2 as elected. The applicant's Election Petition No. 006 of 2021 at Mbale High Court was dismissed on 19 October 2021. She filed a notice of appeal and a letter requesting proceedings within time, but filed the memorandum of appeal on 28 December 2021, well after the seven-day period (which expired 3 November 2021), and lodged the record of appeal on 7 January 2022. She attributed the delay to late preparation of the certified record of proceedings, asserting in her notice that grounds of appeal would be formulated after receipt of the typed proceedings. Respondent no.2 applied to strike out the appeal as incompetent. The applicant applied to extend time and validate the appeal, and separately to adduce additional evidence comprising back pages of declaration of results forms.

Issues

  1. Whether sufficient cause existed to extend time within which to file the memorandum and record of appeal and to validate the appeal filed out of time.
  2. Whether rule 83(2) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, granting consequential extension of time pending preparation of the record of proceedings, applies to parliamentary election petition appeals.
  3. Whether the appeal should be struck out for failure to file the memorandum of appeal within the prescribed time.
  4. Whether the applicant satisfied the conditions for admission of additional evidence on appeal.

Orders

  • Election Petition Appeal Application No. 14 of 2022 (extension of time) dismissed with costs.
  • Election Petition Appeal Application No. 8 of 2022 (to strike out) allowed with costs; Election Petition Appeal No. 84 of 2021 struck out with costs.
  • Election Petition Appeal Application No. 11 of 2022 (additional evidence) rendered moot and struck out with costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Election Petition Appeals — Mandatory Timelines — Filing of Memorandum and Record of Appeal
In parliamentary election petition appeals, the timelines for filing the notice, memorandum and record of appeal under rules 29, 30 and 31 of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) (Election Petitions) Rules are couched in mandatory terms and must be strictly adhered to, reflecting the constitutional requirement for expeditious disposal of election matters.
Election Petition Appeals — Inapplicability of Court of Appeal Rule 83(2) and (3) — No Automatic Extension for Preparation of Proceedings
Rule 83(2) and (3) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which grants a consequential extension of time excluding the period taken to prepare the record of proceedings, does not apply to parliamentary election petition appeals, where the memorandum and record of appeal are filed separately within distinct mandatory periods.
Extension of Time — Sufficient Cause — Dilatory Conduct
An applicant seeking extension of time must show sufficient cause; an intending appellant in election matters carries a heavier duty of vigilance, and an applicant who deliberately fails to take a necessary procedural step within the mandatory period demonstrates no sufficient cause for extension.
Striking Out Appeal — Failure to Take Essential Step Within Prescribed Time
Under rule 82 of the Court of Appeal Rules, a person served with a notice of appeal may apply to strike out the appeal where an essential step has not been taken within the prescribed time; failure to file the memorandum of appeal in time is sufficient ground to strike out the appeal.
Additional Evidence on Appeal — Conditions for Admission — Evidence Available at Trial
Additional evidence will not be admitted on appeal where, after due diligence, it was available to the party at the time of trial; evidence that was always in the party's possession but not discovered or produced, owing to counsel's negligence, does not satisfy the exceptional circumstances required for admission.
Public Documents — Proof by Original or Certified Copies — Declaration of Results Forms
Uncertified copies of public documents, such as declaration of results forms, have no evidential value and cannot be relied upon by the court; their admission as additional evidence is pointless where the originals or certified copies are required under sections 73, 75 and 76 of the Evidence Act.

Legislation cited (24)

Cases cited (20)

  • [2017] UGCA 106
  • [2017] UGCA 122
  • [2012] UGCA 10
  • [2017] UGCA 224
  • Hadondi Daniel v Yolamu Egondi (Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2003)
  • [2009] UGCA 44
  • [2017] UGCA 2
  • Kawombe Lameka v Kafeero Ssekitooleko Robert (Election Petition Application No. 15 of 2017)
  • Speaker of National Assembly v Ngensa Karuoe [2008] 1 KLR 425
  • [2017] UGCA 107
  • Paul Omara v Acon Julius Bua and 3 others (Election Petition Appeal Miscellaneous Application No. 346 of 2016)
  • Wanyama Gilbert Mackmot v Hisa Albert and Electoral Commission (Election Petition No. 99 of 2016)
  • Shanti v Hindocha and others [1973] 1 EA 207
  • [2014] UGSC 132
  • [2004] UGSC 3
  • Ladd Vs Marshall (1954) 3 All ER 745
  • Skone Vs Skone (1971) 2 All ER 582
  • Langdale Vs Danby (1982) 3 ALL ER 129
  • Sadrudin Shariff Vs Tarlochan Singh (1961) EA 72
  • Capt. Philip Ongom v Catherine Nyero (Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2001)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Tete Chelengat v Electoral Commission and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 8 of 2022) [2022] UGCA 136 (6 May 2022)
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.