Having answered issue No. 3, I now go to issue No. I which is whether in Organising and conducting the election there was
failure or non compliance with the electoral laws.
Article 60 of the Constitution creates the Electoral Commission and spells out its composition and tenure. Article 61 of the Constitution
of the Republic of Uganda clause 1 (a) states one of the primary functions of the Electoral Commission to be –
“61 (1) (a) to ensure that regular free and fair elections are held”
The same provision while vesting the Electoral Commission with powers and functions of conducting elections , it at the same time
limits it to ensuring the elections are free and fair. That is the standard set by the constitution whether the
elections are Presidential Parliamentary or Local Government if the Electoral Commission in breach of its constitutional mandate
organises and conducts elections which are not free and fair, such an election is not an election as the Constitutional standard
will not have been met.
Conducting a free and fair election entails providing conditions which enables and empowers a voter to cast his/her vote for the
candidate of his choice on his /her own accord. The voter should be able to cast his vote without any harassment, hinderance,
intimidation or threats. The must also may be not illegal practice of bribery to induce a voter to vote in one way or other. Generally
no fear should be created in the mind of the voter of being victimized after the election.
In achieving this high constitutional standard the Electoral Commission must be honest, competent to conduct elections. The candidates
must be represented at every crucial stage of the election e,g. the nomination, voting and the counting of votes . Free and fair
elections aim at achieving and promoting a free ,just and democratic society as is the aim of the National Objective s and
Directives Principles of State Policy .
The Petitioner contends that the 2nd Respondent failed in its mandate to conduct a fair and free election for the Kyenjojo L.C.V Chairperson. He cited
numerous illegal practices committed by the agents of the 2nd Respondent.
The Petitioner, in his paragraph 7 ( c) of the Petition, alleged that contrary to the principles of transparency enshrined
in section 132 (3) of the Local Government Act and Section 53 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, the Parliamentary Elections
Act, the officials of the 2nd Respondent in particulars, the Assistant Returning Officer of Kyenjojo District , at gun point ejected the Petitioner’s
Representatives out of the Tally centre where the results of the individual polling stations were being received and tallied
and the tallying of the results proceeded thereafter in the absence of the Petitioner’s agents or representatives.
To prove this allegation the Petitioner relied on the affidavit evidence of Friday Clovis, Musinguzi Jonathan and Kabanyomozi
Naome who swore affidavits 2, 160 and 159 in support of the petition. Friday Clovis averred that he was appointed
by the Petitioner as his representative to oversee on his behalf the receiving and tallying of results. He was assisted by
Karamagi Michael, Musiguzi Jonathan, Mwesige Patrick and Kabanyomozi Naome. He deponed that before the tallying commenced
it was agreed between then and the Electoral Commission officials that they would be allowed to study the source, documents
before entering individual results but when the tallying started they were denied the source documents. It is his evidence
by 200 a.m. the petitioner was ahead and it was at this stage that the Assistant Returning officer Joseph Byaruhanga left the
room. On his return Joseph Byaruhanga ordered him and his group to leave the tally room. They were
ejected by police men at gun point.
Musinguzi Jonathan deponed that the tallying proceeded well until 200a.m. when Joseph Byaruhanga made calls and when advised Radio
West to announce that the tallying was over and the 1st Respondent had won. When he and his colleagues protested Byaruhanga Joseph ordered them to be ejected from the tally
room by two men one of whom was armed with a pistol. And on coming out he saw the building in which the tally room was
well surrounded by police and army . Kabanyomozi gave evidence identical in substance.
Joseph Byaruhanga swore affidavit 142 in support of the 1st Respondent’s answer to the Petition but swore none in support of the case of his principal, the Electoral commission.
In the affidavit he swore, he denied the allegations leveled against him by the evidence for the Petitioner. The 1st Respondent had won. When he and his colleagues protested Byaruhanga Joseph ordered them to be ejected from the tally
room and they were accordingly ejected by two men one of whom was armed with a pistol.
He further averred that on coming out they found the building that housed the tally room had been surrounded by police and
the army. Naome Kabanyomozi gave identical evidence in substance to the above.
The 2nd Respondent did not file an affidavit in reply to the above evidence Joseph Byaruhanga, the Assistant Returning Officer
Kyenjojo and therefore the agent of the 2nd Respondent strongly swore an affidavit in support of the answer of the 1st Respondents to the Petition. I found this form of pleading rather strange because the cases of the 1st and 2nd Respondent are independent of each other. One can fail while the other could succeed and therefore
each of them need evidence in its support. In paragraph 8 of the 2nd Respondent’s answer to the petition, he denies the allegations in paragraph 7 ( c ) implicating Byaruhanga Joseph in
general terms . Friday Clovis, Musinguzi Jonathan and Kabanyomozi they swore affidavits implicating him as the agent of the
2nd Respondent who opts to keep quiet and produce no evidence in defence of its case. It is trite that if a party files no affidavits
to contradict what the other party has deponed to, the inference to draw is that the facts raised are unchallenged and
are to be presumed to be the truth.
Nothwithstanding that the evidence adduced for the Petitioner is unchallenged, Mr. Mwene Kahima, learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that the affidavit evidence of the witness was contradictory. He pointed out that whereas Musinguzi Jonathan
and Kabanyomozi Naome deponed that they were ejected by two men in civilian clothes, Friday Clovis averred that they were chased
by policemen. I am of the view that that discrepancy does not go to the root of the matter which is that the agents of the Petitioner
were sent out of the tally room and the tallying went on in the absence of the representatives of the Petitioner. I believe the evidence
that the agents of the Petitioner were ejected and tallying of votes continued in their absence an act which contravened the principles
of transparency enshrined in Section 132 (3), if the Local Government Act and in Article 68 (3) of the Constitution. Counsel also
submitted that the margin Friday Clovis said the margin by which the Petitioner was leading in the election at 200a.m. at the time
of tallying in his oral evidence was different from what he deponed to in the affidavit. I don’t find that discrepancy major
as to impeach the credibility of that witness as what really is in issue is whether the Representatives of the Petitioner were about
during the tally. In the result I find that the 2nd Respondent breached. The principles of fairness and transparency in the election of the L.C.V Chairperson of Kyenjojo District.
In paragraph 7 (a) of the Petition it is alleged that contrary to Section 12 (1) (b) and ( c) of the Electoral Commission Act, the
2nd Respondent failed to control the distribution and use of ballot books and boxes to eligible voters, which resulted in the said ballot
boxes and books falling in the unauthorised possession by agents and supporters of the 1st Respondent who used them to commit election offences such as multiple voting and ballot stuffing.
The evidence in proof of this allegation brought by the Petitioner is to be found in affidavits 3, 16, 22, 34, and 101 in support
of the Petition sworn by Tibahwa Stephen, Isoke Mohammed, Kaija Morris, Kyamanywa and Kadebu Beatrice. Tibahwa Stephen deponed that
on polling day one Muganga a movement mobiliser and a campaign agent for the 1st Respondent ferrying a ballot box on his motor bike. When he met the said Muganga next at Katooke Trading Centre, the ballot box was
no longer with him. He averred further that a day after the polls he visited his uncle Expedito Kyaligonza at Mwaro village and saw
two ballot boxes the type used in the District Chairperson’s election in his house in the sitting room. His uncle was a campaign
agent for the 1st Respondent. The evidence of Isoke Mohamed is that soon after the election he visited Expedito Kyaligonza at Mwaro who was a supporter
of the 1st Respondent. The said Expedito openly boasted of how their camp had cheated the election. To prove his point Expedito Kyaligonza
displayed two ballot boxes which were in his sitting room. He identified the ballot boxes as the transparent types which were used
during the Presidential and District Chairperson Elections. In this regard Kaija Morris deponed that he saw the vehicle of Mugisa
Robert alias Mugisa Sankei parked at Kyarusozi infront of the premises of Aliganyira the L.C.I Chairman. Mugisa Sankei, Sam and Aliganyira
carried a ballot box and placed it in Mugisa Sankei’s car and drove with it towards Kyarusozi. He averred that when he followed
the vehicle to the Senior Secondary School he saw a motor vehicle Reg. No. UG 1177W in which was Hon. Tom Butiime, the 1st Respondnet and the driver. It is further his evidence that he then saw Sam Mugisa alias Sankei transfer the ballot box from the premises
of Aliganyira into Motor vehicle UG 1177W which then drove off. He averred that on returning to the trading Centre, he found
Mugisa Sankei celebrating and boasting that because of the above the 1st Respondent was going to win the election by a margin of between 5000 – 6000. Kaija Morris deponed that the ballot box he is
talking about is the black metalic type used to seal and forward the results to the Returning Officer after counting votes
at individual polling stations.
Kyamanywa deponed that he received a report of a missing ballot book from a polling agent of the Petitioner one Mrs. Kaswara at Humura
polling station. A polling assistant confirmed to him that when a ballot box was opened at the start of voting, the seals of the
ballot book was missing. Incident was reported to the Police under SD/18/02/03/2006. Kyamanywa also testified that he received a
similar report from one Kesi Kaliisa in Kakabara which he forwarded to the police and advised the concerned agent to notify the District
Lastly Kadebu Beatrice gave affidavit evidence that she reported to Mwaro polling station on polling day at 7.30a.m. to find the
ballot box half full though voters had not started to come to vote. He also averred that the Katooke Sub-County movement Chairperson
went to the polling station, was given more than 4 ballot papers which he cast in the view of everyone else.
The second Respondent just like in the case of the allegations in paragraph 7 ( c) of the Petition did not file an affidavit in support
of his answer though the allegations are denied by the affidavits of Hon. Butiime and other deponents who swore affidavits in support
of the Answer of the 1st Respondent to the Petition.
On the whole Mr. Mwene Kahima resorted to questioning the capacity and efficiency on the basis that they were sworn by deponents
who are stated to be both literate and illiterate.
Mr. Musana submitted that the evidence on record showed the illegal practices took place in that a person who is not involved in
the electoral process was seen carrying a box and another person is found in possession of two ballot boxes in his house. The incident
involving Hon. Butiime and the 1st Respondent is also true and proved, Mr. Musana submitted because the same Hon. Butiime who stated on oath that after voting he went
back to Kampala was seen in the company of the 1st Respondent ferrying a ballot box. According to the affidavit of Ogwal Michael Hon. Butiime reported a criminal case that evening
at the police.
Though the fact that the second Respondent filed no affidavit in reply leads to the evidence of the witnesses for the Petitioner
unchallenged, the evidence of these same witnesses is very compelling on its own merits. I find the Petitioner has proved the allegation
that the 2nd Respondent failed to control electoral materials has been proved on a balance of probabilities. This illegal practice has agency
of election officials.
Again contrary to the principles of freedom and fairness it is alleged in the Petition in paragraph 7 ( b) (ii) of the Petition that
Presiding Officers coerced polling agents to sign Declaration of Results Forms in blank before the end of voting at many polling
stations in particular at Kyabulyezibwa, Nyaburara, Kibale Trading Centre, Kyembogo, Twabuurro and Isanga Nursery School.
To prove this illegal practice the Petitioner relied on affidavits 4, 33, 44, 119, 156, 59, 72, 92 and 70 sworn in support of the
Petition by Rukanyangira Amos , Byaruhanga Richard, Bukenya Richard, Irumba Bashir,Kazooba Wilfred, John Mary Byaruhanga and Julius
Kihika, Mwirumubi respectively. In each and every one of these affidavits the deponents who are all polling agents of the Petitioner
deponed that the Presiding Officers in the respective polling stations either tricked, coerced or forced them to sign the Results
Declaration Forms blank before the close of voting. Rukanyangira Amos averred that the Presiding officer of Nyaburara polling station
Kyakuha Jackson ordered him and Tweheyo Samwiri who was his fellow polling agent to sign the Declaration of Results forms in black
before the close of polling. Byaruhanga Richard deponed that the Presiding Officer at Ngangi Church polling station tricked him and
Buhurya Richard into signing the Declaration of results forms in blank before the close of polling. The other deponents aver
to the same illegal practice except that the incident in each case occurred at a different polling station involving a different
presiding officer. The 2nd Respondent as already observed earlier did not file any affidavits in support of its answer to the Petition in which he denied all
illegal practices. What is on record is a number of affidavits filed and sworn in support of the answer of the 1st Respondent to the Petition which cannot serve to support the case of the 2nd Respondent. In the circumstances as the averments by the above deponents are not at all challenged by affidavits in reply, they are
taken as the truth. The Petitioner has accordingly proved on a balance of probabilities that the Presiding Officers at many polling
stations caused Declaration of Results Forms to be signed in blank before the close of voting contrary to the principles enshrined
in Article 61 (1) (a) of the Constitution and Section 12 (1) (e) of the Electoral Commission Act.
It is alleged in paragraph 7 (b) (vi) of the Petition that many election officials like Presiding Officers allowed unauthorised
persons to vote, pre-ticking of voters registers and ballot stuffing and alteration and false declaration of results and multiple
voting. Evidence of this allegation is to be found in the affidavits 5, 8, 15, 29, 35, 30, 46, 51, 73, 76, 82, 84, 98, 101, 18, 37,
45, 50, 59, 73, 75, 77 and 99 in support of the Petition sworn by Asiimwe Robert, Habomugisha H., Tugume Siriverino, Nkurunziza Bernard,
Mucunguzi Richard, Byaruhanga Godfrey, Aliganyira Godfrey, Kato Robert, Kanyamuzi John, Karugaba Patrick, Kurabiraho Charles, Mugarura
Moses, Byaruhanga Beatrice, Tweheyo Samwiri, Morning Charles, Rwambale Elijah, John Maru Byaruhanga, Simon Rumuhuga, January Vincent
and Kawesa Edward respectively. In these affidavits the deponents aver to pre-ticking of the register, multiple voting, unauthorised
voting by Presiding officers and other unauthorised persons, ballot stuffing and alteration and false declaration of results. The
second Respondent filed no affidavits contradicting these allegations. I find therefore that the Petitioner has proved these incidents
of illegal practice on the part of election officials and partly on the part of Presiding Officers to the requisite standard of proof.
In paragraph 7 (b) (1) of the Petition the Petitioner alleges that the Presiding Officers acting in concert with agents and supporters
of the 1st Respondent voted for illiterate and blind voters. In proof of this allegation the Petitioner relied on affidavits 11, 32, 1, 25,
9 and 30 sworn by Alinaitwe Wilber, Kutegeka Archangel, Byamugisha P. George Aheebwa, Kisaija Pauson and Aliganyira Godfrey respectively
in support of the Petition. Alinaitwe Wilber deponed that Bogere Gerald of Kigoyera Trading Centre polling Station personally voted
for illiterates. The evidence of Kutegeka Archangel is that the Presiding Officer at Karambi polling station in Kasule polling
Station instead allowed the agents of the 1st Respondent to vote for illiterates instead of advising the later to choose who was to vote for them. Byamugisha averred that the
Presiding Officer of Kigoyera parish Hall polling station allowed the Kigoyera Parish Chief one Kasangaki to vote for illiterates
while according to the affidavit of Aheebwa George the Presiding Officer of Bwahuurro Polling Station Ruhweza Mathias voted
personally for illiterates. This affidavits were not contested and are therefore taken as the truth. Even on their own merits they
give compelling evidence that the concerned Presiding officers took it upon themselves to vote or to allow other persons to
vote for illiterates contrary to Section 129 of the Local Government Act. I find this allegation of illegal practice to have
been proved on the requisite standard.
All in all I find that the electoral process in his election was riddled with numerous instances of non compliance with the electoral
laws like failure to control the use and distribution of electoral materials, bias and impartiality on the part of the electoral
officials, pre-ticking of registers and ballot stuffing by and with the tacit consent of the electoral officials and
the exclusion of the Representatives of the Petitioner from the tallying exercise which is a very crucial stage of an election. I
answer the first issue in the affirmative and find that in organising and conducting the election there was failure and non-compliance
with the electoral laws.
ISSUE NO. 2:-
This now takes me to the second issue which is whether such non compliance affected the election in a substantial manner. Mr. Musana
submitted that the election now in issue failed to meet the standard of a free and fair election as set out in the case of
Winnie Babihuga Vrs. Masiko Winifred Komuhangi & 2 others Election Petition 4/2001 where Musoke Kibuka J said:-
“A democratic election is merely a medium for the expression of the free will of the people while choosing their representatives etc----“
Mr. Musana submitted that if this election is subjected to both the qualitative and quantitative tests the conclusion arrived at
will be that the non compliance with the electoral laws affected the election result in a substantial manner. He argued that if the
quantitative test is applied to this election the effect of the serious illegal practices including ballot stuffing in favour
of the 1st Respondent, vote tallying in the absence of the Petitioner’s agents leaving Presiding Officers to do what they pleased including
unabsurd result showing that 477 out of 478 registered voters voted the vote difference of 5158 between the 1st Respondent and the Petitioner would have disappeared. He also pointed out that things to consider when applying this test would be
the evidence of vote stuffing in 22 polling stations, cases of pre-ticking of votes. Counsel submitted that with the above relying
on the quantitative test the Petitioner has proved that the malpractices affected the results in a substantial manner.
With regard to the qualitative test counsel submitted that irregularities in 60 polling stations have been highlighted. He contended
that there was widespread rigging intimidation, ballot stuffing. The Petitioners agents were chased away from polling stations, forms
were filled in blanks. There was irregular voting for illiterates and the 2nd Respondent failed to control electoral materials. He described the election a sham. For the proposition that the difference of 5158
between the candidates is not too large, Mr. Musana cited Musinguzi Garuga Vrs. Amama Mbabazi (supra) where the vote difference was 13000 and yet court after considering the anormally of the irregularities and malpractices decided
the case in favour of the Petitioner. Mr. Musana submitted that this case passes both tests and prayed that this Court finds that
the non-compliance with the electoral laws affected the results in a substantial manner.
Mr. Patrick Mugisha submitted that the allegations of illegal practices and electoral officers have not been proved more so because
the deponents of most of the affidavits as the subject had no capacity to answer them. On the irregularities Counsel submitted that
whether the qualitative test or quantitative test is applied, the irregularities proved could not affect the final result of the
election in a substantial manner. He argued that the case of Winnie Babihuga Vrs. Winnie Matsiko Komuhangi & 2 others is not applicable here because the facts and circumstances of the two cases are different. In the case of Winnie Babibuha
over 52% of the Constituency was challenged with serious complaints of election malpractices, whereas in this case, only 60 polling
stations out of a total 260 had any complaints. He contended that even of these 60 complaints not all of them would lend to the annulment
of the election. He argued that in all the complaints of bribery and intimidation etc the 1st Respondent has not been personally implicated nor has it been shown that such acts were done with his knowledge or consent
and approval. Mr. Mugisha submitted that the Petitioner cannot agree that the declaration of Results Forms were improperly signed
when they were signed by his agents nor can he complain of the election results when he conducted an independent tally by which he
lost. Counsel contended that in the above circumstances the Petitioner was caught by the doctrine of election.
Mr. Mwene Kahima, learned Counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that the Petitioner failed to prove against the 2nd Respondent any of the allegation on the Petition because the affidavits in support of those allegations had been sworn by persons
who had no capacity to swear them. He also argued that the other affidavits which were filed later than the Petition itself were
barred by law and out of time as they contained fresh grounds.
Before going into the merits of the 2nd issue I must state that the issue of affidavits raised by Mr. Mwene Kahima has already been exhaustively discussed above in this
judgment. I don’t therefore propose to revert to it.
In determining whether irregularities in the electoral process and contravention of the electoral laws in an election affected the
results on a substantial manner leading to it being set aside the courts use two tests namely:-
The quantitative test
The qualitative test
See (Ret) Col. Kiiza Besigye Vrs. Kaguta Yoweri Museveni (Supra).
Under the qualitative test the margin between the votes of the winning candidate and those of the losing candidate in the light of
the votes that were affected by the irregularities in and the non compliance with the electoral laws . If it is found that
were it not that there was non compliance with the electoral laws the margin between the two protagonists would have been substantially
reduced or even that the losing candidate would have won the election petition is said to have passed the test in that the result
of the election would have been substantially affected.
The qualitative test examines the quality and conditions under which the election was conducted. If the election was held in a fair
and free atmosphere and represented the will and choice of the people, such an election passes the qualitative test. But an
election will invariably fail the qualitative test if it is held contrary to the principles of fairness and in contravention of the
electoral laws will it have failed the qualitative test. An election marred by fear, theft, unfairness, violence, cheating
and criminal acts must fail the qualitative test.
In the instant case the margin between the 1st Respondent who was declared the winner of the election and the Petitioner was 5158 votes. To pass the quantitative test the Petitioner
needs to show that if the irregularities in the electoral process and the non compliance with the electoral law had not been perpetrated
the margin that divided him and the 1st Respondent would have been drastically reduced or non existent or that he would have won the election.
In the instant case, there are a few witnesses like Karugaba Patrick, the deponent of affidavit 73 in support of the Petition who
stated the exact number of votes that were cast in favour of the 1st Respondent directly as a result of the illegal practices of the offences of bribery, ballot stuffing, undue influence and other malpractices.
Those votes if all added up don’t reach 2000.
The vast majority of votes the Petitioner complained of were those resulting from ballot stuffing , pre-ticking of the register,
multiple voting and things like that. In most of these cases the deponents who testified to these abuses did not state the number
of ballot papers were stuffed into ballot boxes, how many of the votes were in favour of the 1st Respondent even in the cases of multiple voting. As no numbers are testified to it is difficult to say because of these malpractices
the margin between the two candidates would be reduced by a particular margin.
With regard to the qualitative test I have made various findings regarding the quality of the election. Credible evidence was adduced
of the 1st Respondent using the official LC.V Chairperson’s vehicle during the campaigns and on election day. I also found that
contrary to Section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, he went to Matiri Trading Centre polling station armed with a gun and
that by being armed at a polling station this constituted the offence of undue influence contrary to Section 154 of the Local Governments
Act. The Petitioner was not represented at the tallying exercise which is a very crucial stage in an election. This was not
because his representatives opted out but because they were ejected from the tally room or centre by an electoral official, contrary
to the principle of fairness. On various pretexes many presiding officers caused polling agents of the Petitioner to sign Declaration
of Results Forms in blank and at least two cases the agents of the 2nd Respondent allowed electoral materials – ballot boxes to fall into the hands of unauthorised person.
Though these illegal practices affected the quality of the election, I don’t find them to have been so pervasing as to have
affected the result of the election in a substantial manner. I agree with Mr. Patrick Mugisha that the abuses complained of took
place in less than a
of the Polling Stations measuring the vast majority of the 260 polling stations had no complaints and proved illegal practices.
All in all, the second issue is answered in the negative as the Petition has not passed both the qualitative and quantitative test.
REMEDIES – ISSUE NO. 4
The Petitioner made the following prayers – that it be declared –
1. That the 1st Respondent was not validly elected as the District Chairperson of Kyenjojo District.
2. That the Petitioner is the validly elected District Chairperson of Kyenjojo District.
3. Alternatively that the election Results for the District be set aside and a new election be held.
4. That new and impartial Returning and Polling Officials should conduct the new election.
5. That the Respondent pay the costs.
Mr. Musana repeated these prayers and additionally prayed that a Certificate for two Counsel considering the intricate and complex
nature of these proceedings Mr. Patrick Mugisha asked for a certificate for three Counsel for the same reasons.
During the final submissions prayer No. 2 that the Petitioner be declared the validly elected Chairperson of Kyenjojo District was
abandoned. This was rightly done as the Court would rather that the people representative be chosen in a free and fair election.
Prayer No. 3 is that the election by which the 1st Respondent was elected Chairperson of Kyenjojo District be set aside. Grounds upon which a Local Government election may be set aside
are to be found in Section 139 of the Local Government’s Act. In the context of the present Petition the relevant subsection
is 139 ( c) which provides as follows:-
“ 139 ( c) the election of a candidate as a Chairperson or a member of a Council shall only be set aside on any of the following
grounds if proved to the satisfaction of the Court-
( c) That an illegal practice or any other offence under this act was committed in connection with the election by the candidate personally
or with his or her knowledge and consent or approval.”
The election of a Chairperson of a District shall therefore be annulled or set aside on proving that he committed an illegal practice
or electoral offence personally or that such an illegal practice was committed with his consent or knowledge and approval. In this
judgment I have found that the 1st Respondent personally committed illegal practices contrary to Section 42 of the Parliamentary Elections Act in that he went
to a polling station armed, Contrary to Section 126 in that he used a Government facility to conduct his campaign and that by the
act of going to a polling station armed and uttering the words “ Things have become tough, I am going back to Kyankwanzi”
or words to that effect he committed the electoral offence of undue influence. I also found that some of the illegal practices committed
by his agents and by National Resistance Movement Party leaders were with his implicit consent or knowledge and approval. For the
above reasons I hereby set aside the election for the Kyenjojo District Chairperson held on the 2/3/2006 and order the holding of
fresh elections. Consequent up setting aside the said election I declare that the 1st Respondent was not validly elected the Chairperson Kyenjojo District and declare that post vacant. I direct that the new election
be organised and conducted by electoral officials other than these who were in charge of the previous one who have given
elections and democracy a bad name.
Considering the sheer volume of the case, the complexity of the issues the research undertaken by Counsel and regarding all the electoral
laws of his country, I hereby issue a Certificate for two Counsel for the Petitioner. Had the Petition failed Counsel for the 1st Respondents would have been similarly entitled.
The costs of this Petition shall be borne by the 1st and 2nd Respondent.
Delivered in presence of Mr. Musana – for the Petitioner
Mr. Bwiruka for the 1st Respondent.
1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent present.
Mr. Bwiruka also holding brief for the Counsel for 2nd Respondent Mr. Mwene Kahima.
Ms. Kinjojo Flavia – Assistant District Registrar.
Mr. Mutabazi – Court Clerk.
Mr. Bwiruka:- Under Rule 29 of the Parliamentary Elections Party which are applied by Section 172 of the Local Governments
Act which provides giving oral notice of appeal – on behalf of the 1st and second Respondents against the whole judgment of this Court I pray for the record and judgment for purposes of appeal.
Court:- Oral application giving notice noted.