Previous 3 / 33 Next

first respondent at the time of his election was not qualified to be validly elected a Member of Parliament for lack of the requisite academic qualifications. In the alternative but without prejudice to the forgoing, the appellant alleged the following: 1. The electoral process in Jinja Municipality East Constituency was not conducted in compliance with the provisions and principles of the Constitution, the Electoral Commissions Act and the Parliamentary Elections Act. 2. The failure to conduct the elections in compliance with the provisions 10 and principles of the electoral laws affected the final result in a substantial manner and benefited the 1st respondent. 3. The 1st respondent personally or through his agents, with his consent, knowledge or approval, committed numerous election offences and illegal practices, which affected the final results in a substantial manner. 4. The 2nd respondent compromised the principle of impartiality and transparency thereby failing to conduct the election in accordance with the law which affected the results of the election in a substantial manner 20 5. The 2nd respondent incompetently computed the results of the election thereby indicating that in its final tally that the appellant had obtained less votes than the actual votes cast in his favour. 3

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