Wakilii

Winifred Komuhangi Masiko v Bamukwatsa Betty aka Muzanira Betty and Another (Election Petition No.004 of 2018)

High Court · [2019] UGHC 105 · 2019 Preliminary Objection Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Election petition challenging parliamentary by-election results — ruling on preliminary objections to affidavit evidence
Decision
Preliminary objections determined; 1st respondent's objection partly allowed; 17 of petitioner's affidavits struck out but petition remains on record supported by 5 valid affidavits; matter to proceed to hearing

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (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 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. 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 dismissed the petitioner's objection to late filing of respondent's affidavit evidence, holding that the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Rules do not restrict filing of affidavit evidence after the answer to the petition. The court granted the petitioner time to file affidavits in rejoinder. The court upheld the 1st respondent's objection to 17 of the petitioner's 22 affidavits, striking them from the record for non-compliance with the Illiterates Protection Act and Oaths Act requirements. The petition remained supported by five valid affidavits and was not struck out.

Outcome

Preliminary objections determined; 1st respondent's objection partly allowed; 17 of petitioner's affidavits struck out but petition remains on record supported by 5 valid affidavits; matter to proceed to hearing

Facts

The petitioner and 1st respondent contested the Rukungiri District Woman MP by-election held on 31 May 2018. The 1st respondent was declared winner with 50,611 votes against the petitioner's 46,379 votes. Results were gazetted on 8 June 2018 and the 1st respondent was sworn in. The petitioner filed an election petition challenging the result on grounds of voter bribery, intimidation, sectarianism, defacement, interference and defamation. The petitioner also challenged the 1st respondent's qualification to be nominated due to discrepancies in her name usage. Before the hearing, both parties raised preliminary objections to each other's affidavit evidence. The petitioner objected to the 1st respondent filing affidavits outside the 10-day period. The 1st respondent objected to 17 of the petitioner's 22 affidavits for non-compliance with the Illiterates Protection Act and failure to properly certify annexures.

Issues

  1. Whether the 1st Respondent's affidavits in support of her reply should be allowed on the record.
  2. Whether the Petitioner's affidavits and annexures in support of the petition are valid and tenable under the Illiterates Protection Act and Commissioners for Oaths rules.
  3. Whether the petition should be struck out for lack of competent supporting affidavit evidence.

Orders

  • The petitioner's objection to the 1st respondent's affidavits dismissed for want of merit; affidavits maintained on record as validly filed.
  • Save for the affidavits of Twinomujuni, Mucunguzi, Twijukye, Asiimwe, Mpanga and the Petitioner herself, all other affidavits filed by the petitioner struck off the record.
  • The petitioner at liberty to file and serve affidavits in rejoinder to those served on her team on 28 January 2019 before 7 February 2019.
  • Hearing scheduled for 12 February 2019.

Rules and key headnotes

Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Filing of Affidavit Evidence — Time Limits
The Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Rules do not restrict a respondent from filing affidavit evidence subsequent to the answer to the petition, provided the affidavits are pieces of evidence rather than the single affidavit required to accompany the answer under Rule 8(3)(a).
Evidence — Affidavits — Illiterates Protection Act — Requirements for Valid Affidavit
Where an affidavit is sworn by an illiterate deponent with the assistance of a third party who reads the contents, the commissioning magistrate must certify that the affidavit was read over and its contents explained to the deponent in the magistrate's presence. Failure to comply with this requirement under Section 1 of the Oaths Act and the prescribed jurat in Form B of the First Schedule renders the affidavit void, as the protection sought for illiterates is a matter of substance, not mere form.
Evidence — Affidavits — Illiterates Protection Act — Distinction Between Preparation and Translation
Under the Illiterates Protection Act, 'preparation' and 'translation' are two different things and one cannot suffice for the other. An affidavit that reflects only that it was translated to the deponent does not comply with the requirement that the name and address of the person who drafted the document be stated.
Civil Procedure — Annexures to Affidavits — Certification by Commissioner for Oaths
Annexures to affidavits must be sealed and certified by the Commissioner for Oaths as required by Rule 8 of the Commissioners for Oaths Advocates Rules. Failure to comply vitiates the annexures, but this is a defect that can be rectified and does not occasion injustice if corrected.
Electoral Law — Election Petitions — Striking Out Petition — Insufficient Affidavit Evidence
An election petition will not be struck out for lack of supporting affidavit evidence where some affidavits remain valid on the record after preliminary objections, even if a substantial number of affidavits have been struck out for non-compliance with statutory requirements.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (9)

  • Bamukwatsa Betty v Winifred Masiko (EPA No. 65 of 2016)
  • Bantalib Issa Taligola v The Electoral Commission and Wasugirya Bob Fred (EPA No. 11 of 2006)
  • Mugema Peter v Mudyobole Nasser (EPA No. 16 of 2016)
  • Lumu Richard v Makumbi Kamya Henry (EPA No. 109 of 2016)
  • Nabukeera v Ronald Kibuule (EP No. 17 of 2011)
  • Lumu Richard Kizito v Makumbi Kamya Henry and Another (EPA No. 109 of 2016)
  • Nsubuga Silvest Ssekutu v Kalibala Charles and Electoral Commission (EPA No. 70 of 2016)
  • Mugema Peter v Mudiobole Abedi Nasser (EPA No. 16 of 2016)
  • Egypt Air Corporation t/a Egypt Air v Suffish International Food Processors Ltd and Another (SCCA No. 14 of 2000)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

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.

Winifred Komuhangi Masiko v Bamukwatsa Betty aka Muzanira Betty and Another (Election Petition No.004 of 2018) [2019] UGHC 105 (5 February 2019)
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.