Wakilii

Twinamasiko v Agaba and another (Election Petition No. 702 of 2021)

High Court · [2021] UGHCEP 3 · 2021 Preliminary Objection Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Ruling on preliminary objections to affidavits filed in support of an election petition challenging parliamentary election results
Decision
Multiple affidavits filed by the petitioner struck out; affidavits in rejoinder struck out; preliminary objections partly allowed

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 3 (treatment unverified) 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.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 3 times with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Citations rising — 3 citing cases on record, 3 in the most recent three data years. 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 multiple affidavits filed by the petitioner where jurats appeared on separate pages with excessive spacing, finding this practice offended sections 5 and 6 of the Oaths Act and created suspicion that deponents did not appear before commissioners for oaths. Affidavits with inconsistent signatures or missing National IDs were also struck out. The court held that affidavits in rejoinder cannot be filed in election petitions without leave of court after the respondent has filed an answer, as the Parliamentary Elections Rules do not provide for rejoinders.

Outcome

Multiple affidavits filed by the petitioner struck out; affidavits in rejoinder struck out; preliminary objections partly allowed

Facts

The petitioner challenged the election of the first respondent as Member of Parliament for Bugangaizi East County Constituency in the 14 January 2021 parliamentary election. The first respondent won with 17,803 votes against the petitioner's 15,421 votes. When the matter came up for scheduling, the first respondent raised preliminary objections that all affidavits filed by the petitioner were defective. The respondents contended that many affidavits had jurats on separate pages, some had signatures differing from National IDs, some lacked National IDs, and affidavits in rejoinder were improperly filed without leave of court after the respondents had filed their answers.

Issues

  1. Whether affidavits with jurats appearing on separate pages offend the Oaths Act and should be struck out.
  2. Whether affidavits with signatures differing from those on National IDs should be struck out.
  3. Whether affidavits in rejoinder can be admitted in election petitions without leave of court.

Orders

  • The following affidavits are struck out and expunged: Ruteebemberwa Chrispas, Nizeyimana Faustina, Sanyu Ruth, Alinda Christopher, Alinda Gift, Arinaitwe Wensi, Turyatemba Junior, Amon Hussein Sunday, Mutegki Fortunate, Kavuma Moses, Tubebamwe Malita, Akansasira Medard, Kanuma Gordon.
  • The affidavits of Mutegeki Fortunate and Haguma Vincent are struck out for lack of attached National IDs.
  • All affidavits in rejoinder filed by the petitioner on 17 May 2021 are struck out.

Rules and key headnotes

Evidence — Affidavits — Form and Structure — Jurat on Separate Page
Where the jurat in an affidavit appears on a page separate from the main text and excessive spacing is deliberately left between paragraphs that could have accommodated the jurat on the same page, the affidavit offends sections 5 and 6 of the Oaths Act and creates a presumption of fraudulent intent, warranting the affidavit being struck out.
Evidence — Affidavits — Signatures — Inconsistency with National ID
Affidavits bearing signatures that are inconsistent with the signatures on the deponent's National ID card are suspect and unreliable, and the court is entitled to strike them out on the ground that the deponent may not have appeared before the commissioner for oaths.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Affidavits in Rejoinder — Admissibility
Under the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provision) Rules, a petitioner is precluded from filing affidavits in rejoinder to the respondent's answer without leave of court and before scheduling, as the rules do not provide for rejoinders in election petitions and pleadings must at one time come to a close.
Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Closure of Pleadings — Election Petitions
In election petitions, once the respondent has filed an answer with accompanying affidavits within the prescribed time, all filings are deemed complete and parties are precluded from filing additional matters except where the court on its own motion or upon application has granted enlargement of time or where parties have agreed on dates during scheduling.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Bayiiga Michael Phillip Lule v Mutebi David Ronnie (Election Petition No. 14 of 2016)
  • Re central bank of Kenya & Anor Nairobi (Mulimani) High Court) Civil Case No.4 of 2000
  • Kazarani Charles v Musoke Paul Sebulime and Another (Election Petition No. 17 of 2016)
  • Mutembuli Yusuf v Nagwomu Moses Musamba and Another (Election Petition No. 13 of 2016)
  • Mutembuli Yusuf v Nagwomu Moses Musamba and Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 43 of 2016)

Cases citing this judgment (3)

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.

Twinamasiko v Agaba and another (Election Petition No. 702 of 2021) [2021] UGHCEP 3 (9 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.