The election petition challenging Abdallah Kiwanuka’s victory as Mukono North Member of Parliament has been temporarily held up by a dispute over the validity of his defence, with former State Minister for Water Ronald Kibuule asking the court to strike out Kiwanuka’s response and an additional affidavit.
Kibuule, an NRM candidate, is challenging the election of Kiwanuka, a NUP legislator, and is seeking, among other remedies, a recount of the votes over alleged electoral irregularities and malpractice. The matter came before Mukono High Court Judge Godfrey Himbaza on Monday, September 21, 2026, for mention and consideration of the parties’ joint scheduling memorandum.
However, before the petition could proceed to substantive issues, Kibuule’s lawyers, Frank Kandiho and Ivan Bwowe, raised a preliminary objection concerning the manner in which Kiwanuka filed his answer and accompanying affidavits. Kandiho argued that Rule 8 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules requires a respondent who intends to oppose a petition to file an answer accompanied by an affidavit setting out the facts relied upon in support of that answer.
“The operative words are ‘an affidavit stating the facts upon which the respondent relies in support of his or her answer’,” Kandiho told the court. He argued that Kiwanuka’s affidavits did not meet that requirement because, instead of supporting his own answer, they largely responded to and challenged the affidavit filed by Kibuule in support of the petition.
Kandiho maintained that an affidavit supporting an answer is distinct from an affidavit in reply. He also challenged a second affidavit filed by Kiwanuka on April 22, 2026, arguing that the rules did not provide a legal basis for introducing the additional affidavit in that manner. Kibuule’s lawyers asked the court to strike out what they described as a defective answer together with the additional affidavit.
If the application succeeds, they argued, Kiwanuka would be left without a valid answer to the petition, meaning the case would effectively proceed unopposed, with costs awarded to Kibuule. Kiwanuka’s lawyer, Chrysostom Katumba, asked for time to respond, saying the objection had taken the defence by surprise. He requested permission to file written submissions, but Kandiho opposed the request, arguing that Kiwanuka’s legal team, including Medard Ssegona and Lugoloobi, had already been notified of the issue and that further delay would undermine the need to handle election petitions expeditiously.
Justice Himbaza adjourned the matter to Tuesday, September 22, at 10:00 a.m. to allow Kiwanuka’s lawyers to respond to the preliminary objection. The court will then consider whether the objections affect the validity of Kiwanuka’s defence and how the petition should proceed. Ugandan law requires parliamentary election petitions to be heard expeditiously, while the election petition rules require a respondent opposing a petition to file an answer accompanied by an affidavit.
Previous Ugandan court decisions have also treated the affidavit accompanying an answer as an important procedural requirement. Outside court, Kiwanuka said he had won the election and expected the court to deliver justice. He described Kibuule’s application as an ambush, saying the petitioner’s side had raised issues that had already been dealt with in other cases.
Kiwanuka said the joint scheduling memorandum prepared by Kibuule’s lawyers was, in his view, inadequate and required further work before the parties harmonised the outstanding issues. He said his team and the Electoral Commission had signed their respective portions of the memorandum before the parties appeared in court. According to Kiwanuka, the petitioner’s side had indicated in the scheduling memorandum that it intended to raise a preliminary objection over whether his answer complied with the Parliamentary Elections Act and the relevant rules.
He said the objection centred partly on the use of the word “replying” instead of “answering” and the subsequent affidavits filed by witnesses. “We sought the court’s attention and indulgence to give us time to respond to this, and the court has agreed with us that indeed it was an ambush,” Kiwanuka said. He accused Kibuule of using preliminary objections to delay the hearing of the petition.
“This is not the first time they are bringing this issue in this court. They have brought the same issues in other courts, but they were dismissed,” Kiwanuka said. He urged his supporters and voters to remain calm, saying he was confident the matter would be determined according to the law. “This is a temple of justice. We are here. Let him be patient,” Kiwanuka said.
The substantive allegations in Kibuule’s petition, including the alleged electoral irregularities and the request for a recount, have not yet been heard. Kibuule’s petition is among several election challenges before Mukono High Court arising from the 2026 general election. The court had earlier scheduled September 21 for the hearing of Kibuule’s petition. The court’s decision on the preliminary objection will determine whether the petition proceeds to consideration of its substantive claims-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
