Previous 10 / 33 Next

Rollo& another v Minister of Town and Country Planning [1947] 2All 488 which Mr Wakida cited, it was held: “In considering whether or not there has been consultation within S.1(1) of the Act, between the Minister and local authorities it is necessary to look at the substance and reality of what occurred and to determine whether the local authorities have had proper opportunity of expressing their views and rendering advice.” 10 Mr Kyazze submitted on the first respondent’s academic qualifications. He stated that the certificates which were presented by the first respondent for equating were obtained outside Uganda. He claimed that the equating and evaluation is done by UNEB and not the third respondent. He submitted that the concern of the appellant is not that the certificates were not genuine but that they were not equated by UNEB. He further stated that it had to be shown that there was consultation. He claimed that it is not enough to state in the body of the certificate of equivalency that there was consultation. He cited the case of Ahmed Kawooya Kaugu v Bangu Aggrey Fred-Election Petition No.5&6/06 (CA) which judicially considered the provisions of section 5(4) (supra). This 20 court held that the consultation between UNEB and the third respondent is mandatory under the section. On the document (IN9) at page 320 of the record of appeal, learned counsel submitted that the said document does not amount to consultation under the law and it was just a mere proposal. He maintained that there was no consultation from UNEB which is the equating body and the section requires individual consultation. 10

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