Previous 30 / 33 Next

“We agree with the statement of the law as cited by both counsel that an appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a lower court unless it is clearly shown that the exercise was unjudicially or wrong principles were followed. If there are grounds to support the exercise by the trial judge of the discretion he or she purports to exercise the question of sufficiency of those grounds for this purpose is entirely a matter for the trial judge to decide, and the appellate court will not interfere with the discretion. It is immaterial that the appellate court would have exercised its discretion differently.” 10 Section 27 of the Civil Procedure governs the award of costs in civil matters in general. The section has a proviso which states that: “Provided that the costs of any action, cause or other matter shall follow the event unless the court or the judge shall for good reason otherwise order.” 20 In election matters the court determining who should bear the costs of an election is guided by rule 27 of the Parliamentary Petitions Rules- S.I 141-2 which state as follows: “All costs of and incidental to the presentation of the petition shall be defrayed by the parties in such manner and in such proportions as the court may determine.” The trial judge in determining how the costs should be defrayed said: 30 “Ordinarily, costs of any action should follow the event. To that extent, I would have awarded 75% costs to the 1st and 3rd respondents and 25% costs to the petitioner given that he was successful against the 2nd respondent on issue No.3. However, Iam aware that petitions are matters of national or political importance for which court should be hesitant to award costs. Iam also mindful of the considerations of Bamwine PJ who, in Kadama 30

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Mwiru v. Samson

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the respondent’s education failed to meet the requirements for candidacy. If so, whether the respondent’s election as a Member of Parliament should be annulled.

Alleged Acts: After the February 18, 2011 election results were announced, the appellant challenged the outcome on the grounds that the respondent was not a qualified candidate at the time of his election as a Member of Parliament. In particular, the appellant argues that the respondents education did not meet the standards to run for office. The appellant makes a secondary argument that the respondent and his agents committed numerous election offenses, but does not name them specifically.

Procedural history: The appellant sought that the election results be annulled and the runner-up declared the Member of Parliament or a fresh election ordered. The respondent denies all charges and asks for dismissal of the action. The lower court dismissed the petition and required that each party pay its own costs.

Summary: The appellant argues that because the academic qualifications were completed outside of Uganda, they did not necessarily meet the equivalent of requirements. He appellant further contends that the respondent did not consult with the National Council for Higher Education to determined that degrees were actually equivalents. The respondent stated that he did not do so because he had in prior elections. The statutory framework requires consultation, however, the court determined that prior or general consultation is not sufficient to equate the education component. The appellant presented evidence or bribery, but the lower court dismissed the claim after the respondent simply denied the claim. The evidence included promising and agents delivering welding machines for voters to registered voters. The absence of any documentation or any contradictory evidence was insufficient for the trial judge to combat this claim.

Conclusion: court determined that lower court placed a high burden of proof on the appellant, that the respondent lacked the equivalent academic qualifications, and committed bribery. The election results annulled and order fresh elections.

Legal Issue(s)

Disputing Results
Electoral Integrity

Applicable Law(s): Parliamentary Elections Act sec. 4, 60, 61(a),(c), & (d), 62, & 63.

Region: Africa

Country: Uganda

Language of Decision

English

Court: Appellate Court

Election Type: Parliamentary

Date of decision: Jun 28, 2011

Geolocation

Latitude: 0.305568717

Longitude: 32.48922821

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

court-appeal-2011-9.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Mwiru v. Samson

Primary Documents

Notifications