Wakilii

Turyamureeba v Basajabalaba and Anor (Election Petition No. 8 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHCEP 80 · 2016 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition challenging the validity of the District Chairperson LCV election for Bushenyi District held on 24 February 2016
Decision
Election of the 1st Respondent as District Chairperson LCV for Bushenyi District upheld. Election petition dismissed.

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 election petition challenging the District Chairperson election for Bushenyi District was dismissed. The court found typographical errors on tally sheets constituted non-compliance with electoral law, but these errors affected both candidates and did not substantially affect the result. The petitioner failed to prove allegations of bribery to the required standard. The first respondent's winning margin of over 5,000 votes would have remained even if all errors were corrected.

Outcome

Election of the 1st Respondent as District Chairperson LCV for Bushenyi District upheld. Election petition dismissed.

Facts

On 24 February 2016, elections were held for District Chairperson LCV positions. In Bushenyi District, Basajabalaba Jafari (1st Respondent) won with 29,862 votes (55.05%) against Turyamureeba Paul Kahiigi (Petitioner) who obtained 24,379 votes (44.95%). The 1st Respondent was gazetted as winner. The Petitioner challenged the result, alleging non-compliance with electoral laws, falsification of results at polling stations, and bribery. Declaration forms showed discrepancies at Bumbaire and Nyanga polling stations where votes were wrongly recorded, benefiting the 1st Respondent by 127 votes. Similar errors at Bijenje and Kakira polling stations benefited the Petitioner. The Returning Officer testified these were typographical errors during recording. The Petitioner alleged bribery at two locations but failed to produce corroborating evidence.

Issues

  1. Whether there was non-compliance with the law in the election held on 24 February 2016 for Chairperson Bushenyi District LCV.
  2. Whether such non-compliance with the law affected the results of the election in a substantial manner.
  3. Whether the 1st Respondent personally or with his knowledge and consent or approval committed any illegal practice or election offence of bribery.
  4. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • Election petition dismissed.
  • Petitioner to pay the costs of the 1st Respondent.
  • No costs awarded to the 2nd Respondent due to finding of non-compliance with law.
  • Each party to bear its own costs as between the Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Burden and Standard of Proof
In election petitions, the burden of proof lies with the petitioner who must prove allegations to the satisfaction of court on a balance of probabilities, but the degree of probability is higher than in ordinary civil suits because of the nature of the dispute and the seriousness of the allegations.
Electoral Law — Non-Compliance with Law — Distinction from Illegal Practices
There is a distinction between non-compliance with provisions of electoral law relating to conduct of elections by the Electoral Commission, and illegal practices such as bribery committed by candidates or their agents. The two are separate grounds for setting aside elections and cannot be interchangeably used to support conclusions on both situations.
Electoral Law — Non-Compliance — Substantial Effect on Results
An election should not be annulled unless non-compliance with law or irregularities have affected the results in a substantial manner. Substantiality is a question of numbers. Courts must apply the principle of substantial justice without undue regard to technicalities.
Evidence — Accomplice Evidence — Need for Corroboration in Bribery Allegations
Bribery is a criminal offence in which both the giver and receiver are culpably responsible. A person who alleges they received a bribe becomes an accomplice whose evidence, while admissible, requires corroboration as a matter of prudent practice. Without corroboration, such evidence is not sufficient to prove bribery to the required standard in election petitions.
Civil Procedure — Cross-Examination — Effect of Failure to Produce Witnesses
Where court directs that witnesses be produced for cross-examination and a party fails to avail deponents of affidavits filed in support of their case, the affidavit evidence of such witnesses becomes the weakest and unreliable.
Evidence — Affidavits by Illiterates — Compliance with Illiterates Protection Act
An illiterate is a person unable to read and understand the script or language in which a document is written. Where a witness cannot understand the contents of their own affidavit, it must be recorded, read and translated to them with the required jurat under the Illiterates Protection Act and Oaths Act. Non-compliance cannot be treated as a mere technicality and renders the affidavit unreliable.

Legislation cited (12)

Cases cited (12)

  • Paddy Kabagambe and Another v Bwambale Bihande Yokasi and Another (Fort Portal Election Petition No. 11 of 2006)
  • Mukasa Anthony Harris v Dr. Bayiga Michael Lulume (Supreme Court Election Petition Appeal No. 18 of 2007)
  • Mugema Peter v Mudiobole Abedi Nasser (Court of Appeal Election Petition Appeal No. 30 of 2011)
  • Byamukama James v Kaija William and Another (High Court Election Petition No. 9 of 2006)
  • Lanyero Sarah Ochieng and Another v Lanyero Molly (Court of Appeal Election Petition Appeal No. 32 of 2011)
  • Hon. Oboth Marksons Jacob v Dr. Otiam Otaala Emmanuel (Election Petition Appeal No. 38 of 2011)
  • Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye v Electoral Commission and Yoweri Kaguta Museveni (Supreme Court Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2006)
  • Businge Fred Police v Kithende Kalibogha and Another (Fort Portal High Court Election Petition No. 5 of 2006)
  • Kadama Mwogezaddembe v Wambuzi Gagawala and Another (Election Petition No. 2 of 2001)
  • Odo Tayebwa v Basajjabalaba Nasser and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 13 of 2011)
  • Dr. Bayigga Michael Philip Lulume v Hon. Mukasa Anthony Harris and Another (Jinja High Court Election Petition No. 6 of 2006)
  • Kamba Saley Moses Vs. Hon. Namuyangu Jennifer

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Turyamureeba v Basajabalaba and Anor (Election Petition No. 8 of 2016) [2016] UGHCEP 80 (26 August 2016)
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.