A registered voter in Wakiso District has defended his right to challenge the election of Wakiso Local Council Five (LC V) Chairperson Ian Kyeyune, as the High Court considers whether an ordinary voter, or only a losing candidate, can file such a petition.
Faruoq Lule’s petition is before Justice George Okello, who on Monday directed the parties to address whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the case. Justice Okello referred the parties to Section 150 of the Local Governments Act, previously Section 138 before amendments, and the Court of Appeal decision in Ronald Ndawula v Hajji Abdul Nadduli (Election Petition Appeal No. 20 of 2006).
When the parties returned to court on Tuesday, Electoral Commission lawyer John Musiime argued that Lule, as a registered voter who did not contest the election, has no legal standing to challenge the LC V chairperson’s election. Musiime relied on Section 150 of the Local Governments Act and the Ndawula decision, arguing that only an “aggrieved candidate” can petition the High Court against the election of an LC V chairperson.
He said registered voters have broader standing to challenge councillor elections, but only where their petitions are supported by the required number of signatures. “The only person who can sue an LCV chairperson must be an aggrieved party,” Musiime told the court, stressing that the Court of Appeal decision is binding on the High Court.
The 2006 Ndawula case is central to the Electoral Commission’s argument. Ndawula had been declared LCV chairperson of Luweero District unopposed, but Hajji Abdul Nadduli, a registered voter who had not contested the election, petitioned the High Court challenging Ndawula’s academic qualifications.
The High Court initially nullified the election, but the Court of Appeal overturned the decision and held that a person challenging an LC V chairperson’s election must be an aggrieved candidate. As then-Deputy Chief Justice Mukasa-Kikonyogo put it, a petitioner “must, under S. 138(1) of the Local Government Act, be an aggrieved candidate.”
Since Nadduli was not a candidate, the Court of Appeal held that he was “incompetent to bring a petition” before the High Court. Musiime contrasted the 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 proceeding to a full trial.
Petitioner Challenges EC’s Interpretation
Lule’s lawyer, Jonathan Elotu, disagreed, arguing that neither Section 150 of the Local Governments Act nor the Ndawula decision prevents his client’s petition from proceeding. 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 the Ndawula decision was raised and rejected.
In that case, five registered voters challenged an LC V chairperson’s election, with their petition supported by more than 500 signatures from voters in the constituency. The court distinguished the case from Ndawula, noting that Nadduli had acted as a single voter without the required signatures.
Justice Aweri Opio held that an LC V chairperson’s election could be challenged before the High Court by a losing candidate or by a registered voter in the constituency supported by the signatures of at least 500 registered voters. Elotu argued that the same interpretation should apply to Lule’s petition.
He also urged the court to consider the broader purpose of the law, questioning why a registered voter is expressly allowed to challenge the outcome of a parliamentary election but would face greater restrictions when challenging an LC V chairperson’s election. Justice Okello questioned whether that argument was effectively inviting the court to legislate from the bench, prompting laughter from the lawyers and the judge.
Elotu further argued that Section 150(2), relied upon by the Electoral Commission, deals with petitions challenging councillor elections filed before a Chief Magistrate’s Court and therefore does not apply to an LC V chairperson’s election petition filed before the High Court. After hearing both sides, Justice Okello reserved his ruling on whether Lule has the legal standing to bring the petition.
He is expected to deliver the ruling on September 25 at 3 p.m. The decision will determine whether Lule’s petition proceeds to hearing and could also clarify the circumstances under which registered voters can challenge the election of district-level political leaders.
Separate Petition by Kyeyune’s Rival
Kyeyune also faces a separate election petition filed by his former rival, Najja Nasifu. The petition came up for mention on Tuesday, when Nasifu’s lead lawyer, Kenneth Paul Kakande, sought an order compelling the Electoral Commission to produce election documents, including declaration of results forms and tally sheets, which he said had only been partially disclosed.
The dispute arose on Monday when the Electoral Commission told the court it had already supplied the documents. Kakande disputed this, telling the court that the tally sheet provided began at page 17, with the first 16 pages missing. Musiime asked the court to reject the application, arguing that it had been filed out of time and would unfairly prejudice the Commission because the issue had already been discussed the previous day.
He also argued that the petitioner was attempting to use the court to obtain documents that should instead be requested through the Commission’s established administrative procedures, including making an application and paying the prescribed fees. Justice Okello agreed and rejected the application. He said Kakande, as an experienced litigator, would have been expected to know the procedural requirements under Order 10 Rules 12 and 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which apply to election petitions through Rule 17 of the Parliamentary and Local Government Elections (Election Petitions) Rules.
“The prayer for discovery is rejected, and the oral prayer that the court compels the EC to produce the DR forms is equally rejected,” Justice Okello ruled. The judge also directed that Nasifu’s petition should not be scheduled for trial until the preliminary question in Lule’s case is resolved. If the court finds Lule’s petition competent, the two cases may have to be consolidated. If it finds that Lule lacks standing, only Nasifu’s petition will proceed. The matter was adjourned to September 25 for further mention-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
