Previous 11 / 33 Next

Mr Wakida, learned counsel for the third respondent, in his reply submitted that the first respondent presented to the NCHE a certificate of High School equivalency issued by the State of California and a degree of Bachelors Science of Administration by Oklahoma State University. He stated that there is no dispute that the institutions mentioned do not exist. He pointed out that the word ‘consultation’ is not defined under the PEA. He cited the case of Rollo &another v Ministry of Town Planning (1948)1 All ER 13 where the court discussed what amounts to consultation. He claimed that UNEB was given sufficient information and it has cleared the 1st respondent 10 since 2001. The first respondent deponed in his first affidavit of 25th March 2011 that he does not possess any qualification higher than ‘O’ Level from a recognized institution in Uganda and thefore falls outside the ambit of persons set out in section 4(13) of the PEA. These persons do not require a certificate of equivalency from the third respondent. There is also no dispute that the 1st respondent has contested for Parliamentary elections since 2001 on the strength of a certificate of equivalency issued by the 3rd respondent. The case for the appellant as I understand it is that the 3rd respondent did not 20 consult UNEB on the academic papers of the 1st respondent which required equating before it issued the certificate in question. The 3rd respondent maintained that it was not necessary to consult UNEB since it had done so in the 11

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