The High Court in Wakiso has struck out a petition challenging the election of Wakiso District Chairperson Ian Kyeyune Sengozi, ruling that a registered voter who did not contest the election has no legal standing to challenge the results.
Justice George Okello delivered the ruling on Friday, September 25, 2026, in Election Petition No. 004 of 2026, brought by Lule Farouq against Kyeyune and the Electoral Commission.
Lule had challenged Kyeyune’s nomination, election and declaration as Wakiso District Chairperson following the January 22, 2026 local government elections.
Kyeyune was declared the winner with 177,710 votes, followed by Najja Nassifu with 99,235 votes, while Nakafeero Flavia finished third with 10,597 votes.
Lule filed the petition as a registered voter and said he had obtained 1,114 signatures from other registered voters in Wakiso District in support of his challenge.
He identified himself as a registered voter at 015 Lweza B Polio Rehabilitation Centre polling station in Ndejje Division, Mutungo Ward, Makindye Ssabagala Municipality, Wakiso District.
However, both Kyeyune and the Electoral Commission raised a preliminary objection, arguing that Lule lacked the legal standing, or locus standi, to challenge the election of a district chairperson because he was not one of the candidates who contested the election.
The objection centred on Section 150 of the Local Governments Act, which governs petitions challenging local government elections.
Counsel for the Electoral Commission, John Musiime of Dentons Advocates, argued that Section 150(1) allows only an aggrieved candidate to petition the High Court against the election of a district chairperson.
He relied on the 2007 Court of Appeal decision in Ndaula Ronald v Hajji Nadduli Abdul, in which the court held that a person who was not a candidate in an LC5 chairperson election lacked standing to challenge the election in the High Court.
Counsel for Kyeyune, Mohammed Kajubi, adopted the Electoral Commission’s submissions and asked the court to strike out the petition with costs.
Lule’s lawyers, however, argued that a registered voter could challenge the election of a district chairperson if the petition was supported by at least 500 signatures from registered voters in the constituency.
Counsel Elotu Jonathan relied on Section 150(3)(b) of the Local Governments Act and a 2011 High Court decision in Okidi & 4 Others v Odok W’ Oceng, in which the court had accepted an election petition filed by registered voters who had obtained more than 500 supporting signatures.
The petitioner’s legal team argued that the law should be interpreted alongside provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act that allow registered voters, under specified circumstances, to challenge parliamentary elections with the support of 500 other registered voters.
Justice Okello rejected that interpretation, finding that Section 150 of the Local Governments Act draws a clear distinction between petitions challenging the election of a district chairperson and those challenging the election of a councillor.
The judge held that Section 150(1) specifically provides that an aggrieved candidate for chairperson may petition the High Court against the person declared elected.
He further found that Sections 150(2) and 150(3), which allow a registered voter supported by at least 500 voters to bring an election petition, apply to elections of councillors and not district chairpersons.
Justice Okello also held that the Court of Appeal’s decision in Ndaula v Nadduli remained binding because it had neither been overturned by the Supreme Court nor departed from by the Court of Appeal.
He said the High Court was bound by the doctrine of stare decisis, which requires lower courts to follow binding decisions of superior courts.
The judge said Parliament could have expressly given registered voters the right to challenge district chairperson elections, as it did in the relevant parliamentary election legislation, but did not do so under Section 150(1) of the Local Governments Act.
“I hold that a registered voter cannot impugn the election of district chairperson. The standing is exclusively given to an aggrieved candidate,” Justice Okello held.
Consequently, the judge found that Lule, having filed the petition as a registered voter rather than as a candidate who had contested the chairperson election, lacked the legal standing to bring the case.
The court therefore struck out Lule’s petition challenging Kyeyune’s election.
Justice Okello also awarded costs against Lule, ordering him to pay each of the two respondents, Kyeyune and the Electoral Commission, half of the costs to be taxed.
The judge noted that although the case had been disposed of at a preliminary stage rather than through a full trial, the respondents had incurred expenses in preparing and arguing the objection. He also observed that the legal question raised was of considerable public importance.
The ruling was signed, dated and delivered at Wakiso on September 25, 2026, and uploaded on the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS).
English 