Wakilii

Wanyama v Hisa and Anor (2) (Election Petition No. 19 of 2016)

High Court · [2016] UGHCEP 78 · 2016 Petition Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition challenging Local Council election result, determined on preliminary objections raised by 2nd respondent
Decision
Petition struck off the record for failure to pay the prescribed filing fees

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 Rule 5(3) of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Rules requiring payment of UGX 150,000 as filing fees is mandatory and applies to Local Council election petitions under section 172 of the Local Government Act. Only UGX 100,000 was validly paid through the bank; an additional payment of UGX 150,000 made directly to the court cashier contravened Treasury Accounting Instructions and could not be recognised as valid court fees. The petition was struck off for non-payment of the prescribed filing fee.

Outcome

Petition struck off the record for failure to pay the prescribed filing fees

Facts

The petitioner filed an election petition on 6 May 2016 contesting the election of the 1st respondent as chairperson of Sigulu Islands sub-county. At commencement, the 2nd respondent raised preliminary objections including that insufficient filing fees had been paid. The petitioner paid UGX 100,000 to the bank as filing fees. An additional UGX 150,000 was allegedly paid to the High Court cashier on the same day, with a receipt issued by court staff describing it as election petition security. The 2nd respondent argued that only UGX 100,000 was paid through proper government revenue channels, while the prescribed fee under Rule 5(3) of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Rules is UGX 150,000. The petitioner contended that the Parliamentary Elections Act provisions on fees did not apply to Local Council elections under the Local Government Act.

Issues

  1. Whether the petition was invalid for payment of insufficient filing fees contrary to Rule 5(3) of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Rules SI 141-2.
  2. Whether the Parliamentary Elections Act provisions on filing fees apply to Local Council election petitions under the Local Government Act.

Orders

  • First preliminary objection allowed.
  • Petition struck off the record with costs to the 2nd Respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Filing Fees — Applicability of Parliamentary Elections Rules to Local Council Elections
Section 172 of the Local Government Act Cap. 243 incorporates the provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act, including the requirement to pay filing fees, to Local Council election petitions where the Local Government Act itself makes no specific provision for such fees.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Filing Fees — Mandatory Nature of Payment Requirement
Rule 5(3) and 5(4) of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Rules SI 141-2, which prescribe a filing fee of UGX 150,000 and provide that if the fee is not paid the petition shall not be accepted, are mandatory provisions that oust the court's jurisdiction where insufficient fees are paid.
Administrative Law — Public Finance — Revenue Collection — Valid Payment of Court Fees
Under the Treasury Accounting Instructions 2003 and the Public Finance and Accountability Act, all court filing fees must be paid in full into a designated bank as Non-Tax Revenue. Payment made directly to a court cashier, even if receipted by court staff, does not constitute valid payment to the Government of Uganda and cannot be recognised as court fees.
Civil Procedure — Striking Out — Incompetent Pleadings — Insufficient Filing Fees
Where an election petition has been filed with insufficient payment of the prescribed mandatory filing fees, the petition is an abuse of court process and incompetent, and must be struck off the record.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (4)

  • Otim Nape George William v Ebil Fred and Electoral Commission (High Court Election Petition No. 17 of 2011)
  • Bandibudi Boniface and 3 Others v Sserwanga William Tom and Electoral Commission (High Court Jinja Election Petition No. 24 of 2016)
  • Edward Byaruhanga Katumba v Daniel Kiwalabye Musoke (Election Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Secretary of State for Trade & Industry v Langridge [1991] 3 All ER

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Wanyama v Hisa and Anor (2) (Election Petition No. 19 of 2016) [2016] UGHCEP 78 (19 October 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.