Gomba East County MP Godfrey Saazi has moved to challenge a High Court ruling that overturned his election victory and ordered fresh parliamentary elections in the constituency.
Saazi, through his lawyers from Magna Advocates, has lodged a notice of appeal at the Court of Appeal, contesting key findings made by High Court Judge Jamson Karemani in an election petition filed by his rival, Henry Harris Kalule.
In the notice, Saazi disputes the judge’s finding that electoral irregularities at nine polling stations substantially affected the outcome of the January 15, 2026 parliamentary election.
He particularly challenges the conclusion that electoral laws were violated at the nine stations where voting was disrupted and results could not be established because the Electoral Commission had failed to provide a secure environment for the exercise.
Saazi is also seeking to overturn the orders nullifying his election, declaring the Gomba East parliamentary seat vacant and directing the Electoral Commission to organise a fresh election.
However, he has indicated that he will not challenge other aspects of the judgment, including the finding that he was not guilty of the alleged illegal practice of obstructing voters.
The appeal follows Justice Karemani’s October 26, 2026 judgment, which upheld Kalule’s petition against Saazi’s election.
In a letter dated October 28, Magna Advocates asked the Registrar of the High Court at Mpigi to provide certified copies of the proceedings, pleadings, affidavits, annexures, judgment and orders to enable them to prepare the grounds of appeal and memorandum of appeal.
The lawyers also requested expedited preparation of the court record, citing the strict statutory timelines applicable to election petitions, and undertook to pay the necessary fees.
In his judgment, Justice Karemani examined two categories of electoral complaints raised by Kalule, distinguishing between results missing from four polling stations and the disruption and destruction of election materials at nine others.
Although the judge established that the failure to include results from the four stations amounted to an electoral irregularity, he ruled that it did not materially alter the outcome because Saazi would still have emerged victorious.
The four polling stations were Buyana Trading Centre, Tiginya SDA Primary School, Kiziba Trading Centre (NAKE-Z) and Buyinja Butoole Primary School B in Kigongo-Lugingi. They had a combined 959 registered voters.
Declaration of results forms from the affected stations showed that Kalule received 453 votes against Saazi’s 366.
Had the results been included in the final tally, Kalule’s votes would have increased from 9,156 to 9,609, while Saazi’s total would have risen from 10,907 to 11,273.
The adjustment would have narrowed Saazi’s winning margin from 1,751 to 1,664 votes.
Justice Karemani concluded that the omission was not sufficient to invalidate the election since Saazi would have retained his lead even after the additional votes were considered.
However, the judge found the circumstances surrounding the other nine polling stations more consequential.
These were Ttaba Trading Centre, Buyebeyi C.O.U, Kimbo Catholic Church (A-NAKA), Kimbo Catholic Church (NAKE-Z), Serumbe UMEA Primary School A in Golola A, Jumbi C.O.U, Serumbe UMEA Primary School B in Kibaka, Kindimunda Playground and St. Peter Primary School in Ngeribalya.
The stations had 4,387 registered voters, whose choices could not be determined because of the disruption and destruction of electoral materials, leaving no reliable results to establish how they had voted.
The judge acknowledged that it would be unreasonable to assume that all the registered voters had turned up or that they would have supported Kalule.
Nevertheless, he observed that both candidates would ordinarily have received votes from the affected stations, just as they did in other parts of the constituency.
With the results unavailable, the court could not establish the effect of the missing votes on the final outcome.
Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Apollo Kantinti versus Sitenda Sebalu and Another, Justice Karemani said courts should assess the number of voters affected by electoral irregularities against the winning margin when determining whether such irregularities substantially affected an election.
In Saazi’s case, the adjusted winning margin of 1,664 votes was less than half the number of registered voters at the nine affected polling stations.
The judge consequently held that the Electoral Commission and the Returning Officer had failed to ensure compliance with electoral laws and principles, and that the failures substantially affected the outcome of the Gomba East election.
During the hearing, Saazi defended his victory, insisting that the election was substantially free and fair and that the declared results reflected the will of the majority of voters.
He denied responsibility for the violence and disruption at the nine polling stations, instead accusing Kalule, his agents and supporters of causing the chaos that resulted in the destruction of election materials.
The Gomba District Returning Officer and the Electoral Commission attributed the missing results from the four polling stations to a technical glitch identified after polling.
They also argued that the destruction of electoral materials at the other nine stations affected all candidates and was not sufficient justification for cancelling the entire election.
Justice Karemani, however, found that the Electoral Commission and the Returning Officer had failed in their responsibility to safeguard the electoral process, contributing to the violations established at the affected stations.
He subsequently nullified Saazi’s election, declared the constituency parliamentary seat vacant and directed the Electoral Commission to conduct fresh elections.
The court ordered each party to meet its own legal costs.
Kalule’s petition was prepared and argued by lawyers from JByamukama and Company Advocates, led by Jude Byamukama and Patience Babiwemba.
Commenting on the judgment, Kalule’s lawyer, Jude Byamukama, expressed confidence that the decision would survive the appeal.
“We think the Trial Judge correctly ordered a by-election and believe that order will be upheld,” Byamukama said.
The Court of Appeal is now expected to examine Saazi’s challenge to the findings and orders that resulted in the nullification of his election.
English 