The High Court in Mukono has allowed former State Minister for Water Ronald Kibuule to call witnesses to give oral evidence in his petition challenging the election of Mukono County North MP Abdallah Kiwanuka.
Ag. Justice Godfrey Himbaza made the ruling on Tuesday, October 6, 2026, allowing Kibuule to present evidence through witnesses who will testify in court and be subjected to cross-examination.
Kibuule is challenging the results of the January 15, 2026 parliamentary election in Mukono County North Constituency, in which the Electoral Commission declared Kiwanuka the winner.
Kibuule alleges that the election was not conducted in accordance with electoral laws and was affected by illegal practices, electoral malpractices, and election offences. He is asking the court to nullify Kiwanuka’s election and order a fresh election, in addition to awarding him costs.
The issue before Justice Himbaza was whether Kibuule could call his witnesses to testify orally, rather than rely solely on affidavits or written witness statements.
When the matter came up for hearing on September 30, Kibuule’s lead counsel, Frank Kanduho, asked the court to allow about 65 witnesses to testify orally. The joint scheduling memorandum lists about 70 witnesses.
Kanduho relied on Section 83 of the Parliamentary Elections Act and a 2021 Court of Appeal decision in Vincent Kayanja De Paul v Fabrice Rulinda & Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 30 of 2021), which recognised affidavit evidence, oral evidence and witness statements as possible forms of evidence in election petitions.
Lawyers representing Kiwanuka, led by Katumba Chrisostom, opposed the application. They argued that under the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules, 2019, evidence in civil proceedings is ordinarily presented through witness statements served on the opposing party before the hearing.
The lawyers argued that allowing Kibuule to introduce a large number of witnesses through oral testimony would make it difficult for the respondents to know in advance the evidence they would face, including the specific polling stations and allegations to which each witness would testify.
They further argued that this could require the respondents to call a similarly large number of witnesses and potentially prolong the hearing through additional adjournments. They also pointed out that Kibuule had already filed five affidavits.
Kibuule’s lawyers, however, argued that the Court of Appeal decision in the Kayanja case had not abolished oral evidence in election petitions. They said Kibuule had indicated in his petition, filed in March 2026, that he intended to seek leave to present oral evidence and that the respondents had not objected to the proposal at that stage.
Justice Himbaza considered the provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Civil Procedure Rules, as well as previous decisions of the Court of Appeal.
The judge noted that Section 83 of the Parliamentary Elections Act provides for witnesses in election petitions to be summoned and sworn in in the same manner as witnesses in civil proceedings. The section also gives the High Court power to summon and examine any person who may assist it in determining an election petition.
Justice Himbaza further considered Rule 15 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules, which generally provides for evidence by affidavit. However, he relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in the Kayanja case, which found that the rule could not be interpreted as excluding other forms of evidence available under the Civil Procedure Rules.
The judge held that parties to an election petition may rely on affidavit evidence, witness statements or oral testimony, where permitted by the applicable civil procedure rules.
He also considered subsequent Court of Appeal decisions, including Baguma Spellanza Muhenda v Kunihira Faith Philo & Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 19 of 2021) and Hon. Lokeris Samson v Komol & Electoral Commission (Election Petition Appeal No. 09 of 2021), which recognised the use of forms of evidence available under civil proceedings in election petitions.
Justice Himbaza rejected the argument that the reference to viva voce evidence in the Kayanja decision meant only cross-examination or re-examination. He held that viva voce evidence means oral testimony given by a witness after taking an oath and testifying in the witness box.
The judge also distinguished the Supreme Court decision in Bakaluba Mukasa Peter v Betty Nambooze Bakireke (Election Petition Appeal No. 04 of 2009), relied upon by Kiwanuka’s lawyers, noting that it was decided
before a change in the law that made the Court of Appeal the final appellate court in election matters. Justice Himbaza consequently found that Kibuule was entitled to seek leave to present oral evidence and that his intention to do so had been indicated at an early stage of the proceedings.
The court ordered Kibuule to begin with the five witnesses whose affidavits are already on the court record. He will then call the other witnesses listed in the joint scheduling memorandum to give their evidence orally after taking the oath.
The respondents were allowed to choose whether to present their own evidence orally or through written witness statements. The court made no order as to costs. The ruling clears the way for the substantive hearing of Kibuule’s election petition to proceed before Justice Himbaza at the High Court in Mukono-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
