The High Court in Mukono has allowed former Mukono County North parliamentary candidate Ronald Kibuule to present oral evidence in his election petition challenging the victory of Abdallah Kiwanuka in the January 2026 parliamentary elections.
Justice Godfrey Himbaza ruled on Tuesday that Kibuule could proceed by viva voce evidence, meaning testimony given orally by witnesses in court.
Kibuule filed the petition challenging the January 15, 2026 election in which Kiwanuka was declared the directly elected Member of Parliament for Mukono County North Constituency.
In his petition, Kibuule contends that the election was not conducted in accordance with electoral laws and was marred by alleged malpractices, illegal practices and election offences.
He is asking the court to nullify Kiwanuka’s election, order a fresh election in the constituency and award him costs.
The issue of how Kibuule would present his evidence arose on September 30, 2026, when his lawyer, Frank Kandiho, asked the court for permission to call 65 witnesses to testify orally.
Kiwanuka’s legal team opposed the application, arguing that election petitions should primarily be determined through affidavits or witness statements.
The lawyers relied on amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules that introduced witness statements as a mode of presenting evidence in civil proceedings.
They also argued that allowing Kibuule to call 65 witnesses would complicate and prolong the hearing because the respondents would have to identify and prepare witnesses to respond to evidence relating to individual polling stations and specific allegations.
The respondents further submitted that Kibuule had already filed affidavits and should therefore continue with that mode of presenting his evidence.
Kibuule’s lawyers, however, argued that the law permits oral testimony in election petitions. They told court that their client had indicated in the petition, filed in March 2026, that he intended to seek permission to rely on oral evidence.
The lawyers cited a 2021 Court of Appeal decision in Vincent Kayanja De Paul v Fabrice Rulinda & Another, which recognised different modes of presenting evidence in election petitions.
In his ruling, Justice Himbaza held that the introduction of witness statements under the amended Civil Procedure Rules did not eliminate oral evidence.
The judge said parties may rely on affidavits, witness statements or oral testimony, depending on the applicable rules and the circumstances of the case.
He therefore found that Kibuule was entitled to apply for permission to present his witnesses orally.
The court also rejected the respondents’ argument that the reference to viva voce evidence in the Court of Appeal decision only related to the cross-examination and re-examination of witnesses.
Justice Himbaza clarified that viva voce evidence involves calling a witness, administering an oath and having the witness give testimony from the witness box.
The judge also found that subsequent Court of Appeal decisions on election petitions were more relevant to the issue than the 2009 Supreme Court decision in Bakaluba Peter Mukasa v Betty Nambooze, noting that the legal framework had since changed, with the Court of Appeal becoming the highest appellate court for electoral matters.
As a result, the court granted Kibuule permission to proceed with oral evidence.
Justice Himbaza directed Kibuule’s lawyers to begin by calling the five witnesses whose affidavits are already on the court record before proceeding with the other witnesses listed in the Joint Scheduling Memorandum.
The witnesses will give their evidence orally after taking an oath.
The respondents were also given the option of presenting their evidence orally or through witness statements.
The court made no order as to costs.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Godfrey Himbaza at the High Court in Mukono on October 6, 2026.
English 