Buhari v. Obasanjo21 and Olusola Adeyeye v. Simeon Oduoye &
Others22.
[82] It was further urged by the respondents that this Court should not
render Section 83 of the Act unconstitutional since such an interpretation
as advanced by the petitioners would derogate from the well laid down and
solid foundation of law and jurisprudence of this Court in the 2013 Raila
Odinga case. Through Counsel Mr. Wekesa, it was submitted for the 1st
respondent that the 2013 Raila Odinga case is good law as was
subsequently adopted and applied by this Court in the Zacharia Okoth
Obado v. Edward Akong’o Oyugi & 2 Others23, and Gatirau Peter
Munya v. Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others24.
[83] The 3rd respondent in addition to the above urged that a party seeking
the nullification of a presidential election, bears the burden of proving that
not only was there non-compliance with the election law but that the noncompliance also affected the results of the election. He thus submitted that
the only way the petitioners can impugn the results reflected in Forms 34A
and 34B is through demonstrating either that legal votes were rejected or
that illegal votes were allowed and that this had an effect on the election. In
support of his proposition, the 2013 Raila Odinga case and other
comparative cases from the Supreme Court of Uganda, in the case of
Amama Mbabazi v. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni & 2 Others25, the
Buhari v. Obasanjo (2003) 17 NWLR (PT. 850) 587; (2003) 11 S.C.74
Olusola Adeyeye v. Simeon Oduoye & Others (2010) LPELR_CA/I/EPT/NA/67/08.
Zacharia Okoth Obado v. Edward Akong’o Oyugi & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 4 of 2014;
[2014] eKLR
24 Gatirau Peter Munya v. Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others & 2 Others, Supreme Court Petition No.2B
of 2014.
25
Amama Mbabazi v. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni & 2 Others, Petition No. 1 of 2016; [2016] UGSC 3.
21
22
23
Presidential
Petition
No.
1
of
2017
33
|
P a g e