Justice George Okello has ruled that a registered voter lacks the legal standing to file an election petition challenging the results of a Local Council five chairperson election.
The judge, who is assigned to handle electoral petitions at the Wakiso High Court, noted that both the law and a prior Court of Appeal ruling establish that only an aggrieved candidate has such standing.
“…I have held that the law gives standing to an aggrieved candidate only to challenge the victory of an elected district chairperson; I hold that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to file the petition. Therefore, the petition…challenging the election of Kyeyune Ian Sengozi as District Chairperson Wakiso, is struck off,” the judge ruled.
The ruling was delivered Friday evening while the court determined a preliminary question of law in a petition filed by Farouq Lule, a registered voter from Ndejje in Makindye-Ssabagabo municipality, Wakiso District.
Lule had sought to nullify the election of Ian Kyeyune as LC V chairperson, arguing that Kyeyune’s nomination was illegal because he lacked the required academic qualifications and that questions remained over his residence and identity.
At the start of the proceedings, neither side had raised the issue of standing. Instead, the Electoral Commission and Kyeyune pressed for consolidation of Lule’s case with a separate petition filed by NUP candidate Najja Nasifu.
Justice Okello, however, directed the parties to address whether the petition met the locus standi threshold.
He referred them to Section 150 of the Local Governments Act (previously Section 138 before amendment) and the Court of Appeal decision in Ronald Ndawula v Hajji Abdul Nadduli (Election Petition Appeal No. 20 of 2006).
When the parties returned, Electoral Commission lawyer John Musiime argued that a registered voter who did not contest the election has no standing to challenge an LC V chairperson’s victory. He relied on Section 150 and the Ndawula precedent, insisting that only an “aggrieved candidate” may petition the High Court.
Musiime noted that registered voters enjoy broader rights to challenge councillor elections, provided their petitions are supported by the required number of signatures.
“The only person who can sue an LCV chairperson must be an aggrieved party,” he told the court, stressing that the Court of Appeal decision binds the High Court. In the 2006 Ndawula case, Ndawula had been declared LC V chairperson of Luweero District unopposed. Hajji Abdul Nadduli, a registered voter who had not stood, petitioned the High Court over Ndawula’s academic qualifications. The High Court initially nullified the election, but the Court of Appeal overturned the decision.
Then-Deputy Chief Justice Mukasa-Kikonyogo held that a petitioner “must, under S. 138(1) of the Local Government Act, be an aggrieved candidate.” Because Nadduli was not a candidate, he was “incompetent to bring a petition.”
Musiime contrasted this provision with Section 79 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which expressly allows a registered voter supported by at least 500 signatures, or a losing candidate, to challenge a parliamentary election. He asked the court to strike out Lule’s petition without a full trial.
Lule’s lawyer, Jonathan Elotu, disagreed. He argued that neither Section 150 nor the Ndawula decision barred his client’s petition. Elotu relied on a 2011 High Court decision by Justice Rubby Aweri Opio in Markly Vincent Okidi and four others v Peter Odok W’Oceng, in which a similar objection based on Ndawula was rejected.
In that case, five registered voters challenged an LC V chairperson’s election with a petition supported by more than 500 signatures. The court distinguished it from Ndawula, noting that Nadduli had acted alone without the required signatures.
Justice Aweri Opio held that an LC V chairperson’s election could be challenged by a losing candidate or by a registered voter supported by at least 500 signatures from voters in the constituency.
Elotu urged the court to apply the same interpretation and to consider the broader purpose of the law.
He questioned why a registered voter can challenge a parliamentary election but faces tighter restrictions when challenging an LC V chairperson. Justice Okello asked whether that argument invited the court to legislate from the bench, prompting laughter in the courtroom.
Elotu further submitted that Section 150(2), cited by the Electoral Commission, governs petitions against councilor elections filed in the Chief Magistrate’s Court and does not apply to an LC V chairperson petition before the High Court.
In his analysis, Justice Okello held that Section 150(1) of the Local Governments Act is “self-contained” and specific: only “an aggrieved candidate for chairperson may petition the High Court” to challenge the election of a district chairperson.
“Sub-sections (2) and (3), which allow a registered voter supported by at least 500 signatures to petition, apply exclusively to the election of a councillor and confer jurisdiction on the Chief Magistrate’s Court, not the High Court,” he opined
Justice Okello found the Court of Appeal decision in Ndaula Ronald v. Hajji Nadduli Abdul binding. He emphasized that the Ndaula decision has neither been overturned nor set aside by the Supreme Court, and the Court of Appeal has never departed from its position.
He noted that lower courts are bound by decisions of the Court of Appeal unless the facts of a case are clearly distinguishable, the higher court has overturned the earlier decision, or the earlier decision was made in error. In his view, none of these exceptions applied in the case before him.
The judge declined to follow the 2011 High Court decision in Okidi & 4 others v. Odok W’Oceng. With respect, he found “no distinguishing feature whatsoever” between that case and Ndaula. The High Court judge in Okidi had purported to rely on sub-sections (2) and (3)(b) to distinguish Ndaula, but the Court of Appeal had already considered those very sub-sections and confined them to councillor elections.
Justice Okello added that the judge in the said matter should have followed the Court of Appeal’s decision, as lower courts are required to follow the rulings of higher courts.
Adopting a plain, natural and literal construction of section 150, Justice Okello held that the provision is clear and unambiguous. Had Parliament intended a registered voter to have standing to challenge a district chairperson’s election, it would have worded sub-section (1) differently and perhaps in the terms of section 79(2)(b) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
“The intention of Parliament must be taken to have been deliberate when it allowed a registered voter to have standing to challenge the election of a candidate as Member of Parliament, and not to have standing about the election of district chairperson,” he said.
The judge, who had earlier cautioned the lawyers during arguments that he could not legislate from the bench, reiterated the point in his ruling. He stressed that courts cannot legislate under the guise of interpretation, noting that Article 79(1) of the 1995 Constitution vests legislative power in Parliament. He added that courts must rely on the language used in a statute when interpreting the law.
On costs, Justice Okello ordered the petitioner to pay each respondent half of their taxed costs. He noted that while the winners are normally entitled to full costs, the case ended early on a preliminary point, the exact objection had shifted after the court’s guidance, and the legal question was of public importance.
Meanwhile, a separate case filed by Nasifu Najja, the aggrieved candidate, also came before the court, with the judge scheduling the hearing to begin on October 7-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
