[2011] UGHC 73

[2011] UGHC 73

The court held that the payment of the prescribed filing fee at the time of presenting an election petition is a mandatory procedural requirement under Rule 5(3) of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules. Non-compliance with this rule, specifically the failure to pay the full fee at the time of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] UGHC 73
Parties
Applicant: Otim Nape George William; Respondent: Ebil Fred; Respondent: Electoral Commission
Court
High Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Number
Election Petition 17 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Election Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
petition_struck_out
Judges
Musota, J
Legal Topics
Filing Fees Compliance, Security for Costs, Affidavit Validity, Commissioner for Oaths Practice, Procedural Mandates
Source Language
en
Election Petitions Civil Procedure Filing Fees Compliance Security for Costs Affidavit Validity Commissioner for Oaths Practice Procedural Mandates

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Otim Nape George William

Applicant

Ebil Fred

Respondent

Electoral Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the petition is invalid for non-payment of the full prescribed filing fee at the time of presentation.
  2. 2 Whether security for costs was paid as required by law.
  3. 3 Whether affidavits commissioned by a person without a valid practising certificate are valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the payment of the prescribed filing fee at the time of presenting an election petition is a mandatory procedural requirement under Rule 5(3) of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petition) Rules. Non-compliance with this rule, specifically the failure to pay the full fee at the time of filing, renders the petition incompetent and invalid. The subsequent payment of the balance as a 'top up' does not cure the defect, as the law does not provide for such a remedy. The court further found that affidavits commissioned by a person without a valid practising certificate after the grace period are invalid, and affidavits commissioned by a magistrate who did not state his...

Court Disposition

petition_struck_out

Orders

  • Petition is struck out with costs.
  • M/s Abwang Otim & Co. Advocates to get two certificates for costs for representing both respondents.