The High Court in Mukono partially accepted preliminary objections raised against evidence filed by the petitioner in the parliamentary election petition for Mukono Municipality. The judge struck out some video recordings, annexures and one witness affidavit but retained the bulk of the supporting evidence.
In a ruling delivered on 1 October 2026, Ag. Justice Godfrey Himbaza ordered the removal of annexure attached to the affidavits of the petitioner, Nabatanzi Daisy Ssonko Sarah, and two of her witnesses Musoke Patrick and Nalubowa Faridah for failure to comply with the Commissioners for Oaths (Advocates) Act.
The same three affidavits also lost their accompanying video evidence, transcriptions and English translations after the court found they violated the Electronic Transactions Act. The entire affidavit of Musoke Patrick was struck out on grounds that it was not relevant to the petition and lacked a valid translation as required under the Illiterates Protection Act.
All other affidavits filed by the petitioner and witnesses were declared valid and retained on the court record. No order was made as to costs. The petition arises from the 15 January 2026 parliamentary elections for the directly elected Member of Parliament for Mukono Municipality.
The Electoral Commission declared Bakireke Nambooze Betty the winner with 21,070 votes. Nabatanzi, who polled 6,683 votes, filed the petition under the Parliamentary Elections Act Cap 177 challenging the result.
She alleges that the first respondent, personally or through agents acting with her knowledge and approval, committed illegal practices and electoral offences including bribery, undue influence, violence and intimidation.
When the matter came up for hearing, Nambooze’s lawyers, led by Medard Lubega Sseggona, raised multiple preliminary objections.
These centred on the late filing of certain affidavits without the respondents’ consent, defective form of some affidavits, improperly commissioned annexures, unauthenticated electronic evidence downloaded from YouTube and BBS Telefayina, and translations that allegedly failed to meet the strict requirements of the Illiterates Protection Act.
They further argued that several affidavits introduced new allegations of bribery not pleaded in the original petition and amounted to an improper amendment.
he petitioner’s lawyer Ahmed Kalule Mukasa, argued that the Civil Procedure Rules do not strictly govern pre-trial steps in election petitions, that parties may file affidavits until the scheduling conference, and that defects in annexures or translations were either curable or required evidence at trial rather than determination as pure points of law.
Justice Himbaza reviewed the court record of the 14 September 2026 mand found that the petitioner had been granted unconditional leave to file additional affidavits by 17 September 2026.
He held that the Civil Procedure Rules apply to election petitions only with necessary modifications and primarily at the trial stage, citing Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authority including *Kyagulanyi Ssentamu Robert v Yoweri Museveni Tibuhaburwa* and *Tamale Julius Konde v Ssenkubuge Isaac.
On the electronic evidence, the judge applied the standards set out in the Electronic Transactions Act and earlier decisions such as *Amongin Jane Francis Okili v Lucy Akello*. He noted that the petitioner and her witnesses had failed to explain how the videos were generated, stored or authenticated, and that the persons who recorded or transcribed them had not sworn supporting affidavits. In an age of cybercrime and artificial intelligence, the court said, such casual introduction of digital material could not be accepted, particularly in a matter of public interest.
Regarding the Illiterates Protection Act, the court found that Musoke Patrick’s affidavit did not contain a proper certificate of translation with the translator’s full names and address. The judge rejected the argument that the defect was merely clerical, relying on the Supreme Court decision in *Wasswa Robert Kigayaza v Kakooza Jonathan. He also observed that the incidents described in that affidavit related to supporters of another candidate who is not a party to the petition, rendering the evidence of remote relevance.
On the broader question of new incidents of bribery, Justice Himbaza accepted the petitioner’s position that once a broad ground such as bribery is pleaded, subsequent affidavits may particularise different incidents. Striking out large numbers of affidavits on technical grounds, he observed, has repeatedly led the Court of Appeal to order retrials, wasting judicial time and resources.
The court therefore declined to strike out the remaining affidavits.The ruling clears the way for the petition to proceed to the scheduling conference and eventual hearing on the merits, albeit without the struck-out video material and the Musoke affidavit.
The parties are expected to file a joint scheduling memorandum and trial bundles as earlier directed. The case, registered as HCT-14-CV-EP-0004-2026, continues to attract local attention in Mukono Municipality, where the margin of victory was substantial but the allegations of electoral malpractice remain contested-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
