[2006] UGCA 49
The court held that the appellant failed to prove bribery to the satisfaction of the court as required under Section 147 of the Local Government Act. The evidence presented was insufficient to establish that bribery occurred or that it substantially affected the election results. The trial judge did not err in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] UGCA 49
- Parties
- Appellant: Mbayo Jacob Robert; Respondent: Electoral Commission; Respondent: Second Respondent
- Court
- Court of Appeal of Uganda
- Jurisdiction
- Uganda
- Case Number
- Election Appeal No. 7 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Election Appeal / Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Bribery in Elections, Proof of Bribery, Affidavit Rejection, Amendment of Petition
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mbayo Jacob Robert
Appellant
Electoral Commission
Respondent
Second Respondent
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Election Appeal / Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether bribery was proved to the satisfaction of the court to warrant nullification of the election.
- 2 Whether the affidavits were wrongly rejected by the trial court.
- 3 Whether the trial judge erred in disallowing the application for amendment of the petition.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the appellant failed to prove bribery to the satisfaction of the court as required under Section 147 of the Local Government Act. The evidence presented was insufficient to establish that bribery occurred or that it substantially affected the election results. The trial judge did not err in rejecting the affidavits, as they did not comply with statutory requirements, nor in disallowing the application for amendment, as it was within the court's discretion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the election result upheld.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed with costs
Orders
- Appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondents in this court and the courts below.
- The declaration of the second respondent as winner of the election is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
**THE RUBLIC OF UGANDA**
**COURT OF APPEAL**
**ELECTION APPEAL NO. 7 OF 2006**
(Appeal from the decision of the High Court of Uganda sitting at Mbale (Muhanguzi; Ag, J.) dated July 23, 2006 arising from Election Petition No. 18 of 2006)
**(CORAM: OKELLO, TWINOMUJUNI AND BY AMU GISH A, JJ. A)**
MBAYO JACOB ROBERT;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;APPELLANT
**VERSES**
**ELECTORAL COMMISSION & Anor;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;RESPONDENT**
*Election Petitions*—*Bribery—Bribery during elections—Proof of bribery—Section 147 of Local Government Act—Bribery must be proved to satisfaction of Court before election can be nullified*
This was an Election Appeal from the Judgement of the High Court of Uganda sitting at Mbale. On March 10, 2006, Kabwangasi Sub-County in Pallisa District held its elections for Local Council 111 as part of the National Elections of 2006. The appellant and second respondents were nominated as candidates for the office of the chairperson.
The first respondent declared the second respondent as the winner of those elections. The appellant contested the results but his petition was dismissed. The appellant then filed an appeal contending that non-compliance affected the results substantially. He alleged bribery, that the affidavits were wrongly rejected and that the learned trial Judge erred in disallowing the application for amendment.
**HELD:**
Section 147 of the Local Government Act is to the effect that any person who with intent either before or during election, either directly or indirectly influences another person to vote or to refrain from voting for any candidate or gives, provides or causes to be given any money gift or other consideration to another person to influence that person's voting, commits an illegal practice of the offence of bribery. In the instant case, bribery was not proved to the satisfaction of the Court.
*Appeal dismissed with costs here and Courts below.*
Dated this 8th day of December 2006
OKELLO, JA
TWINOMUJUNI, JA
BYAMUGISHA, JA
**Legislation considered:**
Civil Procedure Act, Cap 71, Section 100
Local Government Act, Cap 243, Sections 139 (c), 147
Oaths Act, Cap 19
**Cases cited:**
Beoco Ltd Vs Alfa Laval Co. Ltd [1994] 4 ALLER 464 Central Kenya Ltd Vs Trust Bank Ltd [2002] 2 EA 367
JlDBaua Ltd Vs Didar Singh [1961] EA 282
PKizza-Besigye Vs Electoral Commission and Museveni Kaguta, Election Petition [ No. I of 2001
vO/|fKR
•m Bakery Vs Castelino [1958] EA 461 lo Transport Services (Bus) Ltd Vs Martin Adala Obene, Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1994 fciyatta National Hospital Vs Kenya Commercial Bank [2003] EA 528 Ijieads Vs Steeds 22 QBD 337 at 42
***ton 147 of***
***c election***
***sitting ;n*** Actions 1 second
ns. *The* ***Ved an Meg* cd** *Ked in*
with ***other lUses that*** •tail i