The High Court in Masaka has dismissed an election petition filed by Veronica Nanyondo challenging the election of Ruth Katushabe as Bukomansimbi District Woman Member of Parliament, ruling that the Electoral Commission lawfully corrected an error in the gazetted election results and that allegations of vote manipulation and falsification of declaration forms were not proved.
In a judgment delivered on November 5, 2026, Justice Rosette Comfort Kania upheld Katushabe’s election, declaring that she was duly elected by the people of Bukomansimbi District and was properly declared winner by the Electoral Commission through a corrigendum published in the Uganda Gazette on February 13, 2026.
The judge dismissed Nanyondo’s petition, holding that she had failed to establish that the alleged irregularities substantially affected the election outcome or that declaration of results forms from seven polling stations had been forged or altered in favour of Katushabe.
The dispute arose from the January 15, 2026 parliamentary elections in which Katushabe was declared the winner with 23,481 votes, while Nanyondo emerged as the first runner-up.
However, the Electoral Commission’s initial gazette notice of February 6, 2026, mistakenly placed the word “winner” against Nanyondo’s name despite reflecting Katushabe as having obtained more votes.
The Commission subsequently issued a corrigendum correcting the error and confirming Katushabe as the winner.
Nanyondo challenged the correction, arguing that once the Commission had gazetted her as the winner, it had exhausted its mandate and could not reverse the declaration without an election petition.
She also accused the Commission of failing to comply with electoral laws, inaccurately computing results from six polling stations and falsifying declaration of results forms from seven other polling stations to inflate Katushabe’s votes.
However, Justice Kania rejected the argument that the Electoral Commission had acted outside its powers by correcting the gazette notice.
The judge relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Geoffrey Omara v Charles Angiro Gutomoi Abacacon and Electoral Commission, which established that the Commission has a duty to correct errors in published election results to ensure that the public receives accurate information.
Justice Kania observed that the February 6 gazette notice itself showed that Katushabe had obtained 23,481 votes against Nanyondo’s 23,275, making the placement of the word “winner” against Nanyondo’s name an obvious clerical error.
She ruled that the corrigendum did not alter the votes or the results declared by the Returning Officer but merely placed the word “winner” against the candidate who had obtained the highest number of votes.
“I find that the publication reflecting the Petitioner as the winner with fewer votes than the 1st Respondent was a clerical error which the 2nd Respondent rightly corrected,” Justice Kania ruled.
She added that the Commission owed a duty to the public, particularly voters who had participated in the election, to ensure that the gazette reflected the candidate they had elected.
The judge consequently found that Katushabe had been validly and legally returned, declared and gazetted as the winner.
Six polling stations
On the alleged inaccurate computation of results from six polling stations in Kigangazzi Town Council, Nanyondo argued that she had obtained 844 votes against Katushabe’s 595, but the Returning Officer allegedly recorded only 164 votes for her, leaving out 680 votes.
However, after examining the certified declaration of results forms and the Electoral Commission’s tally sheet, Justice Kania established that the six polling stations had been correctly captured and that the figures reflected in the tally sheet were consistent with the certified forms.
The judge listed the results as follows: at Kigangazzi Playground, Nanyondo obtained 125 votes against Katushabe’s 87; at Kasenyi Playground, Nanyondo secured 139 against Katushabe’s 57; while another Kigangazzi Playground polling station recorded 118 votes for Nanyondo and 129 for Katushabe.
At another Kigangazzi Playground station, Nanyondo obtained 156 votes against Katushabe’s 96, while Busagula Primary School recorded 170 votes for Nanyondo against Katushabe’s 157.
The sixth polling station, identified in the judgment as Kasenyi Playground, recorded 136 votes for Nanyondo against Katushabe’s 69.
The combined results were 844 votes for Nanyondo and 595 for Katushabe.
Although the judge noted that the tally sheet was not arranged in chronological order, with results from the six polling stations appearing on different pages, she said cross-examination of the Electoral Commission’s Principal Legal Officer, Kugonza Enock Amooti, could have helped clarify the circumstances surrounding the arrangement of the figures.
However, the parties opted not to cross-examine most of their witnesses, leaving the court with affidavit evidence containing competing allegations.
Justice Kania consequently found that Nanyondo had failed to prove that her votes from the six polling stations were inaccurately tallied in a manner that substantially affected the election outcome.
Court rejects allegations of forged declaration forms
The judge also dismissed allegations that the Electoral Commission relied on forged or altered declaration of results forms from seven polling stations to declare Katushabe the winner.
The contested polling stations were Bukomansimbi Primary School, Kakukuulu Primary School, Kiryamenvu Playground, Nkalwe Primary School, Sserinya Playground, Lugazi Trading Centre and Kagoggo Catholic Church, also identified as Kagoggo B.
Nanyondo had argued that the uncertified copies of declaration forms attached to her petition represented the genuine results, while the certified forms used by the Electoral Commission had been manipulated to reduce her votes and increase those of Katushabe.
However, the judge explained that certified declaration of results forms retained by the Electoral Commission and transmitted in tamper-proof envelopes constitute the primary records for establishing polling station results.
She noted that uncertified copies held by candidates and their agents could only be relied upon in exceptional circumstances, particularly where a party establishes that efforts to obtain certified copies from the Commission had been unsuccessful.
The court found that Nanyondo had not demonstrated that she had attempted to obtain certification of the alternative forms she relied on or that the Electoral Commission had declined to certify them.
The judge also observed that there was no evidence that the tamper-proof envelopes containing the official declaration forms had been opened, interfered with or substituted between the polling stations and the tally centre.
In examining the allegations, Justice Kania considered the evidence of a handwriting expert, SSP Erisa Sebuwufu, who had been called by Nanyondo to examine signatures on disputed declaration forms.
Although the judge rejected an objection by Katushabe’s lawyers challenging the expert’s authority to prepare and present the forensic report, she ultimately found weaknesses in the evidence presented.
The judge noted that several signatures used for comparison were photocopies or specimens collected by Nanyondo’s lawyers after the election dispute had arisen, rather than samples obtained directly by the expert under controlled circumstances.
She also faulted the expert for failing to obtain clearer copies or original national identity cards to establish the authenticity of the disputed signatures.
In some instances, the expert had excluded signatures appearing on photocopies of national identity cards because they were faint, yet the judge observed that those signatures could have provided useful evidence because they had been made before the election dispute.
At Bukomansimbi Primary School, for instance, the disputed certified declaration form indicated that Katushabe obtained 478 votes against Nanyondo’s two votes, while the uncertified form relied upon by Nanyondo indicated that she obtained 151 votes against Katushabe’s 41.
The judge found that the handwriting expert had not analysed the signature on the original national identity card of Nanyondo’s agent, Ashaba Martin Ian, and had instead relied on specimens supplied by the petitioner’s lawyers.
She further noted that no evidence had been presented to show that the alleged forgery had been reported to the police or another relevant authority.
The court consequently found that the handwriting evidence and other material presented were insufficient to establish that the certified declaration form had been forged.
Similar findings were made in relation to the other contested polling stations, where the court found that Nanyondo had not produced sufficient independent evidence to displace the certified election records.
Several affidavits struck out
The petition also suffered a setback after the court upheld objections by Katushabe’s lawyers against several affidavits presented in support of Nanyondo’s case.
The judge struck out affidavits sworn by two presiding officers, Nakigozi Fedresi and Najjuma Josephine, after finding that they had not demonstrated that they obtained the Electoral Commission’s authorisation before disclosing information acquired in their capacity as election officials.
Justice Kania relied on Section 7(6) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which prohibits election officers from disclosing information acquired through their appointment without lawful authority.
The judge held that although the two presiding officers were competent witnesses under the Evidence Act, their failure to obtain the required authorisation rendered their evidence illegal and incompetent.
The court also struck out 10 other affidavits after finding that Nanyondo had failed to establish that they had been properly commissioned.
The affected witnesses included polling agents Bwanika Tonny, Ashaba Martin, Namirembe Claire, Nammembwa Resty, Nakalyowa Shanitah, Wasswa Nyombi and Nakaweesi Sophia, alongside Nsubuga Ronald, Ssemanda Godfrey and Ndibasa Sarah.
The judge, however, upheld the affidavit supporting Nanyondo’s petition itself, finding that the original document on the court record had been properly commissioned on February 27, 2026, before Principal Magistrate Grade One Jatiko Winnie Nankya.
In a significant observation, Justice Kania raised concerns about the existence of a separate certified copy of the petition which appeared different from the document on the court record.
She said the existence of parallel certified court documents containing different information suggested possible tampering with court records and recommended an administrative inquiry to protect the integrity of judicial records.
The judge also rejected an objection against the affidavit of handwriting expert Sebuwufu, finding that the forensic examination had been conducted through the Directorate of Forensic Services of the Uganda Police Force following a formal request by Nanyondo’s lawyers and payment of the required government fees.
Parties to meet own costs
In dismissing the petition, Justice Kama said Nanyondo had failed to discharge the burden of proof required in election petitions.
She emphasised that allegations of electoral malpractice must be supported by cogent and credible evidence and that where an alleged offence attracts penal sanctions, the required standard of proof is higher than that applicable to ordinary electoral irregularities, although it does not reach the criminal standard of beyond reasonable doubt.
The judge consequently declared Katushabe duly elected as Bukomansimbi District Woman Member of Parliament.
On costs, the court ordered each party to meet its own expenses, reasoning that election petitions are matters of national importance and that awarding heavy costs could discourage candidates with genuine grievances from seeking judicial redress.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Rosette Comfort Kania on November 5, 2026.
English 