[2006] UGHC 30

[2006] UGHC 30

The court found that the applicant and his counsel failed to show sufficient cause for their non-appearance at the hearing of the election petition. The evidence presented, including affidavits and oral testimony, established that the vehicle allegedly used by the applicant and his counsel was in a garage on the relevant date, rendering their explanation for absence false. The court held that the affidavits supporting the application contained blatant falsehoods, which went to the root of the application and rendered it a nullity. The applicant did not demonstrate a prima facie chance of success in the main petition, nor did he show that he honestly intended to attend the hearing or...

Citation
[2006] UGHC 30
Parties
Applicant: Anthony Okello; Respondent: Ojok B'Leo; Respondent: Returning Officer, Amolatar; Respondent: Uganda Electoral Commission
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
24 July 2006
Case Number
Misc. Application No. 26/2006
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Reinstatement of Dismissed Petition, Sufficient Cause for Nonappearance, Falsehoods in Affidavits, Costs Award
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Election Petitions Reinstatement of Dismissed Petition Sufficient Cause for Nonappearance Falsehoods in Affidavits Costs Award

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Okello

Applicant

Ojok B'Leo

Respondent

Returning Officer, Amolatar

Respondent

Uganda Electoral Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sufficient cause was shown to justify non-appearance of the applicant and his counsel at the hearing of the election petition.
  2. 2 Whether falsehoods in affidavits supporting the application render the application a nullity.
  3. 3 Whether the application for reinstatement is barred by res judicata.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant and his counsel failed to show sufficient cause for their non-appearance at the hearing of the election petition. The evidence presented, including affidavits and oral testimony, established that the vehicle allegedly used by the applicant and his counsel was in a garage on the relevant date, rendering their explanation for absence false. The court held that the affidavits supporting the application contained blatant falsehoods, which went to the root of the application and rendered it a nullity. The applicant did not demonstrate a prima facie chance of success in the main petition, nor did he show that he honestly intended to attend the hearing or...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application to set aside the dismissal order of 10th May 2006 is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay costs of this application to the respondents.