Nabatanzi Daisy Ssonko Sarah v Bakireke Nambooze Betty and Another (Election Petition 4 of 2026) [2026] UGHC 1172 (1 October 2026)

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HOLDEN AT MUKONO: HCT-14-CV-EP-0004-2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT CAP 177, AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (ELECTION PETITIONS) RULES SI-141-2 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS OF DIRECTLY ELECTED MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR MUKONO MUNICIPALITY, IN MUKONO DISTRICT HELD ON THE 15™ JANUARY 2026. NABATANZI DAISY SSONKO SARAH?:::::::::criuitiuituismimmniiisiiitnstnttit: PETITIONER vs

1. BAKIREKE NAMBOOZE BETTY

2. ELECTORAL COMMISSION:::::::::::sstsrsrirsrusmsaiituntuimennmtanitziitt2t! RESPONDENTS. BEFORE: HON. JUSTICE GODFREY HIMBAZA RULING ON PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

Introduction

[1] This petition was filed by the petitioner under the Parliamentary Elections Act Cap 177,

and The Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules SI 141-2. The Petition 7 challenged the outcome of the Parliamentary Elections held on 15" January, 2026 for the

Ahifha page [Pplawtd Poe

directly elected member of parliament for Mukono Municipality, in Mukono District and the petition sought for;

a) A declaration that the 1* respondent personally and /or her agents and campaigners acting with her knowledge and consent or approval committed illegal practices and offences during the election for Member of Parliament for Mukono Municipality.

b) An order that the election and return of the 1* respondent as the directly elected candidate for Mukono Municipality Member of Parliament be set aside.

©) An order that a fresh election be held in Mukono Municipality.

4) A recommendation of the prosecution of the 1* respondent and her agents in respect of the offences committed in the course of the said election.

e) Costs of the petition be paid.

Background

[2] The background is not in dispute. The petitioner and the 1* respondent together with

others, contested the directly elected parliamentary seat for Mukono Municipality Mukono

District, at the general election held on 15" January 2026.The 2% respondent declared

and gazetted the 1* respondent as the winner

In the petition, the petitioner contends that she obtained 6,683 votes while the 1%

respondent was returned as the winner with 21,070 votes. The petitioner is aggrieved by

the declaration of the 1 respondent and filed the petition claiming that during the election

campaign period and on election day, the 1* respondent personally and or through her

agents and campaigners , acting with her knowledge and consent or approval, committed

illegal practices and electoral offences like bribery and interfering with the free exercise

of the franchise ofthe voters and undue influence, volence and intimidation among others

The petition was fixed fr scheduling and hearing by the court.

Legal Representation

[3] At the hearing, the petitioner was represented by Mr. Ahmed Kalule Mukasa, Mr

Aaron Buyinza, Mr. Kiberu Micheal, Mr Kiberu Micheal and Ms. Brenda Amutosi. jh ae 1 respondent was represented by Hon. Medard Lubega Segona, Mr. Katumba Mpa

2iPase

Chrisestom, and Mr. Eric Bbosa, The 2" respondent was represented by Ms. Daphine ‘Ahebwa who held brief for Mr. Naboth Muhairwe.

Preliminary objections

[4] When the petition was called for hearing on 24% September 2026, counsel for the Petitioner raised preliminary objections bordering around the following areas, that;

(a) Some of the affidavits of the petitioner were filed without the consent of the respondents contrary to what had been ordered by court during the previous court appearance, while other affidavits offended the rules of pleadings.

(b) Some of the affidavits of the petitioner were defective and or incompetent for failure to comply with the law in their form.

(c) To be specific, some of the affidavits had attachments that were not properly commissioned, translated and others attached evidence in form of electronic evidence that the deponents had no legal capacity to tender in court.

Consideration by Court, 1*respondent’s Submissions on the preliminary objections.

[5] Counsel for the 1 respondent submitted that during the previous court appearance of 14” September, 2026 counsel for the petitioner intimated to court that the petitioner would be filing additional affidavits on court record, to which counsel for the respondents objected, and the court directed that the same would be filed, subject to the consent of Counsel for the respondents. Counsel submitted that it was therefore incumbent that the Petitioner's counsel ought to have first sought for consent from the respondent's counsel before filing the affidavits. That counsel for the petitioner then served the respondents with affidavits deponed on 17" September 2026 and the affidavits were headed; “Affidavit in support of the Petition”.

[6] Counsel singled out the affidavits of the petitioner, (Nabatanzi Daisy), Nalubowa Faridah, & Musoke Patrick. Counsel submitted that these affidavits were filed five months after the ‘1st respondent had filed her answer to the petition. Counsel argued that they presen filed as additional affidavits, but as affidavits in support of the petition. Counsel Weed [TP age

‘submitted that the 1% respondent filed her answer to the petition on 21* April 2026, while the 2°4 respondent filed its answer on 17" April 2026. He averred that whereas the Law permits the petitioner to file an affidavit in rejoinder, the same ought to be filed within ten days from the date of filing affidavits in reply, as per the Civil Procedure Rules.

[7] In reference to Nabatanzi Daisy's affidavits sworn on 17" September 2026, counsel averred that she purported to introduce new evidence in form of ‘You Tube’ downloads from BBS TELEFAINA. That she also introduces purported screenshots evidencing the ‘said publications. That in paragraph 5(b) of the said affidavit, she purports to introduce video broadcasts of the purported translation. Counsel averred that this was clearly new evidence never referred to in the original petition. Counsel averred that the said evidence was filed contrary to a court order, and also clearly offended rules of pleadings. Counsel posed a question whether they were affidavits in support, yet by “reiterating” they presented themselves as supplementary affidavits while at the same time confusing themselves as affidavits in rejoinder.

[8] The second objection was that while the Law requires annextures attached to the affidavits to be commissioned, with the Commissioner's seal, certifying that the documents are part of the affidavits, some of the petitioner's affidavits offended this averred that the annextures must be securely sealed under the commissioner's hand and ‘seal. Counsel invited court to refer to the decision of Shukrah Mukesh Vs Electoral Commission EPA No. 340 of 2021, which recited the /ocus classicus case of Utex Industries Vs Attorney General SCCA no. 92 of 1995.

[9] Counsel referred to Annexture A of the affidavit of Nabatanzi, which appears to be a photograph of a person with a certifying stamp indicating that it is a true copy of the original, yet the original is not talked about anywhere, and under paragraph 5, the deponent referred to two sources; BBS TELEFAINA and BBS TELEVISION, but she does not claim to have taken the screen shots by her phone or camera. Counsel referred this court to the Electronic Transactions Act under section 10(2) which provides that before electronic evidence is accepted, its authenticity must be ascertained through spyience that is cogent and coherent as to the manner in which it was generated, stored Meee

The pages read for this report end here. The judgment continues in the PDF.