Previous 2 / 33 Next

nominated and gazetted as candidates by the second respondent to contest for Jinja Municipality East Constituency. At the end of the polling exercise the following results were declared by the second respondent: 1. Hon. Igeme Nathan Samson Nabeta 8,203 votes (49.52 %). 2. Mwiru Paul 7,060 votes (42.62 %). 3. Dhikusoka Cranimer 378 votes (2.28 %). 4. Mugabi Cyrus 296 votes (1.78%). 5. Waiswa Alex Mufumbiro 262 votes (1.58 %). 10 6. Nagaya Moses 135 votes (0.81%) 7. Osinde Oyo Ritchie 127 votes (0.77 %) 8. Mudago Rogers 105 votes (0.63%). Consequently the second respondent declared the first respondent as the duly elected Member of Parliament for Jinja Municipality East Constituency. He name was gazetted in the Uganda Gazette of 21st February 2011. He was sworn in and he is currently the Member of Parliament for that constituency. The appellant was dissatisfied with the outcome and on 16th March 2011, he 20 filed a petition in the High Court Jinja Circuit under sections 4, 60, 61(a) (c) (d), 62 and 63 of the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) (Act 17/05) challenging the outcome. The main thrust of the appellant’s case was that the 2

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