The High Court in Kampala has dismissed a petition challenging the election of five Workers’ Representatives to Parliament for the 2026 to 2031 term, citing improper service of court documents on some respondents and the petitioner’s failure to establish his legal standing to challenge the results.
In a ruling, Justice Allan Paul Nshimye dismissed Election Petition No. HCT-00-CV-EP-0013-2026, which sought to overturn the March 2, 2026 election results declaring Nakku Fiona, Birungi Annet, Rwabushaija Namubiru Margret, Arinaitwe Rwakajara and Agaba Gilbert as Workers’ Members of Parliament.
The court also awarded costs to the respondents, ending the case without a full hearing of the allegations against the electoral process.
The petitioner, Michael Kamba Bhamusangala, had sought 18 orders to nullify the results, alleging several irregularities and violations of electoral laws. Among his key complaints was the alleged absence of a national voters’ register for workers.
He also challenged the Electoral Commission’s decision to validate nomination papers for 26 candidates, arguing that the nominations should not have been accepted in the absence of a legally established Workers’ National Voters Register.
The respondents, through their lawyers, including Jude Byamukama and Derrick Bazekuketta, who represented Nakku, raised preliminary objections. They questioned whether the petition had been properly served, whether the High Court had jurisdiction over the complaints and whether Bhamusangala was legally entitled to institute the proceedings.
On service of the petition, Justice Nshimye found that the petitioner had failed to comply with the statutory requirements governing the delivery of election petitions to respondents.
Section 81 of the Parliamentary Elections Act requires a petitioner to serve written notice of the presentation of an election petition, together with a copy of the petition, within seven days of filing it. Personal service is required unless the court authorises an alternative method in accordance with the applicable rules.
The judge found that the process server had admitted failing to serve Nakku, the first respondent. The petitioner had also not applied for permission to use an alternative method of service.
The court consequently upheld the objection concerning Nakku and dismissed the petition against her.
Bhamusangala had relied on WhatsApp messages to demonstrate service on Birungi Annet, Rwabushaija Namubiru Margret and Arinaitwe Rwakajara.
However, Justice Nshimye found that the affidavit of service contained screenshots showing double grey ticks against the messages, which, in the court’s assessment, did not establish that the recipients had read the documents. The process server had also failed to provide adequate evidence connecting the telephone numbers used to the respective respondents.
The judge therefore concluded that proper service had not been proved against the three representatives and dismissed the petition against them.
While acknowledging that electronic service may be accepted in appropriate circumstances, based on previous Court of Appeal decisions, Justice Nshimye emphasised that sufficient evidence must demonstrate that the intended recipients became aware of the proceedings.
The court did not uphold the service objections relating to Agaba Gilbert and the Electoral Commission, finding that the two had been properly served.
On jurisdiction, Justice Nshimye explained that the Electoral Commission has original jurisdiction over complaints arising before and during polling, while the High Court is empowered to hear petitions challenging declared parliamentary election results under Sections 79 and 80 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
The judge found that several of Bhamusangala’s complaints related to nominations and other matters arising before the election, which should ordinarily have been raised before the Electoral Commission.
According to the ruling, only grounds two and three among the 18 grounds presented by the petitioner, concerning alleged non-compliance with electoral laws, could potentially be considered by the High Court, subject to sufficient evidence.
The court therefore partly upheld the jurisdictional objection, ruling that several of the complaints could not properly be pursued through the election petition as presented.
However, the question of Bhamusangala’s legal standing proved decisive in the case.
Under Section 79(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, an election petition may be brought by a candidate who lost the election or a registered voter in the relevant constituency who meets the statutory requirement of support from at least 500 registered voters.
Justice Nshimye found that although Bhamusangala had described himself as a self-employed worker and a custodian of workers’ rights, he had not demonstrated that he was a candidate in the election or produced the required signatures of at least 500 registered voters.
The judge consequently ruled that the petitioner had failed to establish the legal right to challenge the results.
Justice Nshimye stressed that locus standi, the legal capacity to institute proceedings, is a fundamental requirement that must be satisfied before a court can determine the substantive merits of a case.
The judge also referred to Bhamusangala’s earlier legal challenge concerning the Workers’ National Voters Register.
In the earlier case of Kamba Michael Bhamusangala v Alex Asiimwe and Others, High Court Judge Isaac Bonny Teko found that the Electoral Commission had failed to fulfil its legal obligation regarding the register but declined to stop the nomination exercise. The court instead awarded the applicant Shs50 million in damages and costs.
Justice Nshimye alluded to the earlier proceedings while considering the circumstances surrounding the latest petition.
The court ultimately dismissed the election petition with costs to the respondents and declared two applications seeking to strike it out overtaken by events.
Nakku’s legal battles to enter Parliament
Nakku has faced previous legal challenges in her pursuit of a parliamentary seat.
She had earlier sought to contest for the position of National Female Youth Member of Parliament but was disqualified by the High Court on grounds that she was above the age limit for youth representation under the National Youth Council Act.
English 