LIST: Winners and Losers of Uganda's 2026 Parliamentary Election Petitions So Far
Uganda’s 2026 parliamentary elections have produced a second contest, this time inside courtrooms. Candidates who lost at the ballot have turned to the courts, accusing their victorious opponents of electoral malpractice, voter bribery, violence, intimidation, falsification of results and irregularities in the counting of votes.
But the legal battles have not followed a single pattern. Some sitting MPs have had their victories upheld after judges found that petitioners failed to prove their allegations. Others have benefited from procedural rules, with courts declining to examine the substance of the complaints. In another case, a parliamentary election was set aside after the court found that irregularities had substantially disenfranchised voters.
The decisions have also exposed the financial consequences of challenging election results. Depending on the circumstances, judges have ordered unsuccessful petitioners to pay costs, allowed parties to walk away without costs, or directed the Electoral Commission to contribute towards the legal expenses incurred by the parties.
In the following report, The Pearl Times presents a review of significant parliamentary election-petition outcomes examining the arguments, judicial determinations and costs in each dispute.
State Minister for Water and Environment Aisha Ssekindi retained her Kalungu District Woman MP seat after Justice Bernard Namanya dismissed a petition filed by National Resistance Movement (NRM) candidate Hellen Nakeeya.
The case was particularly significant because the judge acknowledged that serious incidents of violence and electoral misconduct had occurred during the election period but found that the evidence did not establish that they substantially affected the final result.
Nakeeya had accused Ssekindi and her associates of voter bribery, intimidation, interference with polling agents, circulation of pre-marked ballot papers and falsification of election results. She also presented evidence concerning the vandalism of her Toyota Wish and the killing of two of her supporters, Gerald Katumba and Frank Muyingo, in an incident involving a police officer deployed at Ssekindi’s residence.
Justice Namanya found that the two supporters had indeed been killed and that Nakeeya’s polling agent, Godfrey Mwebesa, had been assaulted. The court also acknowledged threats, intimidation and the circulation of dummy ballot papers marked in favour of Ssekindi. However, the judge found insufficient evidence connecting Ssekindi personally to the alleged offences or establishing that she authorised, consented to or approved them.
The judge also found that the petitioner had not demonstrated that the incidents substantially changed the outcome. He criticised the Electoral Commission for failing to take timely remedial action following the killings, including considering whether to postpone polling under Section 64 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
Ssekindi obtained 25,773 votes against Nakeeya’s 5,498. The judge dismissed the petition and ordered each party to bear its own costs, sparing Nakeeya an additional financial burden despite losing the case.
Maracha County MP Nelson Uhuru survived a challenge by former parliamentary candidate Denis Oguzu Lee, who wanted the High Court to overturn the January 15 election over allegations of voter bribery and prohibited campaign donations.
Justice Celia Nagawa dismissed the petition, finding that the evidence did not establish that Uhuru personally committed electoral offences or that people who allegedly committed them acted with his knowledge, consent or approval.
Oguzu’s case centred on allegations that money had been distributed to voters at several locations, including Oluffe Subcounty Hall, Ambekua Primary School, Pine Grounds near Nigo Primary School, Ojipaku Village and Otrutia Chapel. The alleged payments ranged from Shs1,000 to Shs20,000.
He also questioned donations and fundraising activities involving religious institutions, schools and clan representatives during the campaign period.
The judge found significant gaps in the evidence. At Ambekua Primary School, for example, witnesses alleged that Abima Robert had distributed money to attendees, but the court was not satisfied that he had been established as Uhuru’s campaign agent or that the candidate had authorised the payments.
The court also rejected the suggestion that Uhuru’s father, Embatia Savarino, could automatically be treated as his agent merely because they were related. At Ojipaku, a visitors’ book allegedly bearing Uhuru’s signature did not establish that voters had been bribed.
Justice Nagawa confirmed Uhuru’s election and directed each party to bear its own costs. Uhuru had won with 13,696 votes, while Oguzu finished third with 3,290.
The judgment reinforced the distinction between allegations of misconduct and the legal requirement to demonstrate a candidate’s responsibility for electoral offences.
Mbarara District Woman MP Loydah Kyarikunda Twinomujuni retained her parliamentary seat after Justice Tom Chemutai dismissed a petition filed by former MP Margaret Ayebare Rwebyambu challenging her academic qualifications.
The dispute focused on whether Kyarikunda had satisfied the minimum educational requirements for election to Parliament and whether the Electoral Commission had acted lawfully in accepting her nomination.
Ayebare argued that Kyarikunda’s academic documents were deficient and that the Electoral Commission had improperly nominated her. Her challenge raised questions about the qualifications required of parliamentary candidates and the extent to which courts can revisit decisions made during the nomination process after an election has taken place.
Justice Chemutai held that complaints concerning academic qualifications that arise during the nomination process should ordinarily be taken to the Electoral Commission, with an appeal to the High Court where necessary. He said a post-election petition was not the appropriate first forum for resolving such disputes.
The judge nevertheless examined Kyarikunda’s academic records and found that she possessed qualifications exceeding the minimum required, including a Bachelor of Public Health degree and a Master of Public Health degree.
The judge also criticised Ayebare for selectively presenting documents relating to Kyarikunda’s qualifications while failing to include the complete set of records she had obtained from the Electoral Commission. One of Ayebare’s witnesses admitted during cross-examination that he had relied on social media claims without independently verifying them.
Kyarikunda had secured 31,456 votes against Ayebare’s 16,075. The petition was dismissed, Kyarikunda’s election was confirmed, and Ayebare was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Aringa County MP Siraji Brahan Ezama retained his seat after Justice Celia Nagawa dismissed a petition filed by Ashirafu Tairi, who had contested the constituency on the Uganda Patriotic Movement ticket.
Tairi sought to overturn the January 15 election, accusing Ezama and people allegedly acting on his behalf of committing illegal electoral practices and offences.
The petitioner alleged that the election had been characterised by violence, intimidation and other electoral malpractices. He also accused the Electoral Commission of failing to fulfil its constitutional and statutory responsibility to organise and conduct a free and fair election.
Ezama and the commission denied the allegations, arguing that the election had been conducted in accordance with the law and that any irregularities proved would not have substantially affected the outcome.
Justice Nagawa dismissed the petition in its entirety, finding that Tairi had not proved that Ezama committed any illegal practice or election offence, either personally or through agents acting with his knowledge, consent or approval.
The court also rejected the argument that the alleged irregularities provided sufficient grounds to invalidate the election. Ezama had obtained 6,541 votes against Tairi’s 5,684, a margin of 857 votes.
The costs decision was particularly notable. Rather than ordering the losing petitioner to compensate the respondents, Justice Nagawa directed each party to bear its own costs. She cited the public-interest nature of election petitions and the fact that the two candidates were cousins.
The judge reasoned that imposing costs could breed further animosity and undermine reconciliation in the constituency. She urged voters to heal from the divisions created during the election.
National Resistance Movement MP Fredrick Ruhindi retained the Nakawa Division East parliamentary seat after Justice Allan Paul Nshimye dismissed a petition filed by National Unity Platform deputy spokesperson Alex Waiswa Mufumbiro.
Mufumbiro had asked the court to overturn Ruhindi’s election, citing the exclusion of results from 22 polling stations, discrepancies in voter records, inflated tallies and alleged tampering with declaration of results forms.
His argument was that the disputed results and irregularities undermined the integrity of the election and warranted its nullification.
Justice Nshimye found that results from the 22 polling stations had indeed not been included in the final tally. However, he ruled that the omission had not substantially affected the outcome.
The judge also questioned the reliability of some of Mufumbiro’s documentary evidence, particularly uncertified photocopies of declaration of results forms. Relying on Section 68 of the Evidence Act and the Supreme Court decision in Karuhanga v Electoral Commission, he held that the documents could not be treated as authentic public records in the circumstances presented.
One of Mufumbiro’s witnesses also conceded during cross-examination that a claimed voter turnout of 99.99 per cent at a polling station was actually 66.78 per cent.
The court further found that Mufumbiro had not established that he received more votes than Ruhindi or that the discrepancies identified justified overturning the declared result.
The petition was dismissed and Ruhindi confirmed as the duly elected MP. In a decision that spared both sides additional litigation expenses, Justice Nshimye ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Tororo Municipality MP Shyam Jay Tanna survived a challenge by former MP Apollo Yeri Ofwono, who sought to have the January 15 parliamentary election nullified over allegations of violence, intimidation, arrests of supporters and irregularities in the declaration of results.
Justice Rosemary N. Bareebe delivered judgment on October 30, upholding Tanna’s election.
Ofwono, who contested on the NRM ticket, had lost the election to Tanna, who secured 5,781 votes against his 4,829. His petition challenged the circumstances surrounding the election, including allegations of electoral violence and bribery.
Tanna and the Electoral Commission opposed the petition, maintaining that the election was lawful and that the alleged irregularities did not affect the final result.
The court found that Ofwono had failed to prove bribery, establish that the alleged offences were attributable to Tanna or demonstrate that the irregularities substantially affected the election outcome.
The judgment also addressed the evidential requirements for electronic material, emphasising the importance of authentication, provenance, chain of custody and admissible translation. Allegations of electoral misconduct could not be established simply by presenting electronic material without laying the necessary evidential foundation.
Tanna therefore retained the seat.
Masaka City Woman MP Justine Nameere retained her seat after Justice Bernard Namanya dismissed a petition by National Unity Platform candidate Rose Nalubowa, who challenged the recount that had reversed the initial election outcome.
The case was significant because the court identified irregularities in the recount process but ultimately concluded that Nalubowa had not proved that the violations substantially affected the final result.
Nalubowa maintained that she had initially won the January 15 election with 25,443 votes against Nameere’s 20,324. A subsequent recount declared Nameere the winner with 25,502 votes against Nalubowa’s 23,176.
The recount became the central issue in the dispute, with the petitioner questioning the handling of electoral materials and the integrity of the process that produced the revised figures.
In Nalubowa Rose v Nameere Justine and Others, Election Petition No. 5 of 2026, the court found that the recount had been conducted in non-compliance with electoral law and that some electoral materials had been compromised.
However, the judge held that Nalubowa had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the irregularities changed the result in a substantial manner. The decision applied both quantitative and qualitative considerations in assessing the impact of the irregularities.
The petition was consequently dismissed and Nameere’s election remained intact. A subsequent application for review was also dismissed with costs after the court found no apparent error justifying intervention.
Leader of the Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi has retained his Nakawa Division West parliamentary seat after the High Court dismissed an election petition filed by lawyer and former Makerere University guild president Ivan Bwowe, who wanted the court to invalidate the nomination of his political rivals and declare him the duly elected MP.
Bwowe’s case centred on the description of the constituency on nomination documents. He argued that Ssenyonyi and other candidates had been nominated for Nakawa West, a constituency he maintained did not legally exist, instead of the officially gazetted Nakawa Division West.
He contended that the error invalidated their nominations and consequently rendered the January 15 election unlawful. Bwowe, who obtained 271 votes, wanted the court to declare him the only validly nominated candidate and award him the parliamentary seat. Ssenyonyi received 21,761 votes.
The dispute had an earlier chapter before the elections. Bwowe initially challenged the nominations before the Electoral Commission and subsequently appealed to the High Court.
On January 8, 2026, Justice Collins Acellam dismissed that earlier challenge, ruling that the omission of the word Division was a correctable clerical error because the accompanying control forms identified the candidates as contestants for Nakawa Division West.
Bwowe returned to court after the election, arguing that the original nomination defect invalidated the entire electoral process. The respondents maintained that the issue had already been determined and could not be reopened through a post-election petition.
Justice Allan Paul Nshimye found that the Electoral Commission had indeed made errors in the nomination documents by indicating Nakawa West Constituency instead of Nakawa Division West Constituency. However, the judge ruled that Bwowe had not presented sufficient evidence to establish that the commission’s mistakes amounted to non-compliance with electoral law warranting the nullification of Ssenyonyi’s election.
The judge nevertheless faulted the Electoral Commission, warning that mistakes in statutory nomination documents could create opportunities for abuse of the electoral process if left unchecked. He emphasised that election officials must accurately complete nomination documents to prevent similar disputes.
The financial outcome was particularly interesting. Rather than ordering Bwowe to meet the full legal costs of the respondents, Justice Nshimye directed the Electoral Commission to pay a quarter of the legal costs incurred by both Bwowe and Ssenyonyi.
The order placed part of the financial responsibility on the commission whose nomination-document errors had contributed to the dispute.
Following the judgment, Ssenyonyi described the petition as a waste of time, arguing that the issues raised by Bwowe had already been settled by the Electoral Commission’s tribunal and the High Court before the elections.
In one of the most consequential election-petition decisions of the year, National Unity Platform’s Godfrey Saazi lost his Gomba East County parliamentary seat after Justice Jamson Karemani Karemera nullified his election and ordered the Electoral Commission to organise a fresh poll.
The judgment followed a petition by his NRM challenger, Henry Harris Kirumira Kalule, who argued that the January 15 election had been conducted in violation of electoral laws.
Kalule’s petition centred on two major complaints: the exclusion of results from four polling stations and the disruption of voting at nine others.
The four stations whose results were omitted were Buyana Trading Centre, Tiginya SDA Primary School, Kiziba Trading Centre (NAKE-Z) and Buyinja Butoole Primary School. Electoral officials attributed the omission to a technical glitch, although the court established that voting, counting and declaration of results had taken place at those locations.
The four stations had given Kalule 453 votes and Saazi 366. Including those figures would have increased Kalule’s tally from 9,156 to 9,609 and Saazi’s from 10,907 to 11,273. Saazi would still have retained his lead.
Justice Karemani therefore found that the exclusion of those four polling stations, considered on its own, was not sufficient to substantially affect the result. The more consequential issue was the disruption of voting at nine other polling stations, where electoral materials were destroyed and no results could be included in the final tally.
The nine affected stations had 4,387 registered voters. Evidence before the court described how unidentified individuals, some allegedly armed and dressed in military uniforms, disrupted voting and destroyed electoral materials.
Although the judge did not establish who orchestrated the violence, he found that the failure to protect the voting process and the resulting disenfranchisement substantially affected the election.
The court declared the seat vacant and ordered a fresh election. Each party was directed to bear its own costs. Saazi’s removal was particularly significant because he was serving his second term in Parliament.
National Unity Platform’s Yusuf Junior Kiruluuta Nkerettanyi retained the Kalungu East parliamentary seat after the High Court struck out a petition filed by former minister Vincent Frerrio Bamulangaki Ssempijja.
The case ended without a full examination of the alleged electoral malpractice because the petition was filed outside the statutory 30-day period.
Ssempijja had challenged the January 15 election, in which Kiruluuta obtained 15,473 votes against his 13,219.
The former minister alleged vote inflation, miscomputation, falsification of results, tampering with electoral materials, violence, intimidation, multiple voting, voter impersonation and bribery. He wanted the court to overturn the election and grant appropriate relief.
His lawyers argued that the petition had been presented at the court registry on April 1, the final day of the statutory filing period, but was not stamped and formally lodged until April 2 because registry officials required payment of filing fees.
They maintained that the fees had been paid on April 1 and that the delay was attributable to the court’s administrative process and an inadvertent mistake by the former legal team. They asked Justice Joyce Kavuma to treat the petition as having been filed on time or alternatively extend the deadline by one day.
The respondents argued that payment of filing fees could not replace the actual presentation of a petition to the registrar.
Justice Kavuma agreed, finding that the court record showed the petition was lodged on April 2, after the deadline had expired. She also noted that the fees were paid at 9:11 p.m. on April 1, long after the registry had closed at 5 p.m.
The judge dismissed Ssempijja’s application, leaving Kiruluuta’s election undisturbed. The decision meant the court did not have to determine the substance of the allegations against the MP.
Five Workers’ Members of Parliament retained their seats after Justice Allan Paul Nshimye dismissed a petition by Michael Bhamusangala Kamba, who had sought to challenge the March 2, 2026 election results.
The respondents were Fiona Nakku, Annet Birungi, Margaret Rwabushaija Namubiru, Arinaitwe Rwakajara and Gilbert Agaba, together with the Electoral Commission.
Bhamusangala had sought 18 orders, including nullification of the election results. His central argument was that the Electoral Commission had failed to establish a national voters’ register for workers, thereby undermining the legality of the nomination and election process. He also sought to invalidate the nomination of 26 candidates.
The respondents challenged his right to bring the case, arguing that he had not demonstrated that he was an unsuccessful candidate or a registered voter supported by at least 500 registered voters, as required by Section 79(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
The judge agreed that Bhamusangala had failed to establish the necessary legal standing. The court also found that service of the petition on several respondents had not been properly effected.
In particular, the process server relied on WhatsApp messages showing double grey ticks but could not establish that the intended recipients had read the documents. Justice Nshimye said proper proof required evidence connecting the telephone numbers to the respondents and demonstrating that the documents had reached them.
The court also distinguished between complaints that should be handled by the Electoral Commission before or during polling and petitions challenging declared parliamentary results. Of the 18 grounds, only two were considered legally competent for the High Court’s consideration.
The petition was dismissed with costs to the respondents. The ruling was a procedural victory for the five MPs, rather than a judicial determination that every complaint about the workers’ election process was unfounded.
Kira Municipality MP George Musisi retained his seat after his challenger, former NRM candidate Daniel Kananura, abandoned an election petition that had progressed almost to the end of the trial.
Justice George Okello granted Kananura permission to withdraw the case and declared Musisi validly elected and duly sworn in as MP.
Kananura had accused Musisi and the Electoral Commission of electoral irregularities, violence, intimidation, voter bribery and vote rigging during the January 15 parliamentary election.
He wanted the court to nullify the results, declare him the winner or order a fresh election. Musisi had won with 21,561 votes, while Kananura obtained 6,927. Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda finished second with 14,685 votes.
The proceedings had reached an advanced stage. The court had heard the cross-examination of Musisi and three of his witnesses, as well as an Electoral Commission witness. Only one commission witness remained to be cross-examined before the parties could file their final submissions.
Kananura, however, applied to withdraw the petition on October 8, saying he had reviewed the evidence and concluded that crucial material required to prove his allegations was no longer available. He also blamed his former lawyers for allegedly rushing to file a poorly prepared petition.
Justice Okello criticised the original preparation of the case, observing that the legal team had attempted to use cross-examination to fill gaps in the petitioner’s evidence.
He nevertheless declined to impose additional costs, noting that respondents had already obtained a costs award after an amended petition was struck out. The judge ordered each party to bear its own costs for the withdrawal proceedings and the original petition.
Budaka County MP Moses Goire, Iki-Iki County MP Abdu Swaibu Kampanya and Budaka District Woman MP Noel Kataike Babula retained their seats after independent candidate Michael Kamba Musangala withdrew a petition challenging their elections.
The case was brought before Justice Issa Sserunkuma, who granted permission for the withdrawal after the parties reached an agreement.
Musangala had challenged the January 15 election results, accusing the Electoral Commission of irregularities beginning with the nomination process and continuing through voting.
He had named all three MPs and the commission as respondents. His challenge was unusual because he had contested Budaka County, where he received only 173 votes against Goire’s 28,681, but also challenged the victories of the Iki-Iki County MP and the district Woman MP.
When the case came before court, Musangala’s lawyer told Justice Sserunkuma that his client had lost interest in pursuing the proceedings. The respondents agreed to the withdrawal, subject to the costs being taxed by court. They also agreed that the elections and declarations of the three MPs should stand.
Their lawyers had argued that the petition was filed outside the legal time limit, lacked substantive grounds and improperly challenged constituencies in which Musangala had not contested.
The financial implications were potentially substantial. The respondents sought approximately Shs180 million in legal costs, which Musangala indicated he was prepared to meet, although he said he would consider an appeal if the amount proved excessive.
The court granted the withdrawal, but the reported Shs180 million was the amount being sought by the respondents, not a confirmed final costs assessment.
Security Minister Jim Muhwezi retained his Rujumbura County parliamentary seat after his challenger, Fred Turyamuhweza, obtained permission to withdraw an election petition challenging the January 15 results.
Justice Susan Kanyange granted the application, bringing the legal challenge to an end without a full trial of the allegations.
Turyamuhweza had sought to nullify Muhwezi’s victory, but ultimately abandoned the case. The court allowed the withdrawal, meaning that the original election result remained undisturbed.
The costs decision was particularly important. Justice Kanyange awarded costs to the Electoral Commission, meaning the petitioner faced a financial consequence for abandoning the challenge.
NRM candidate Emmanuel Maganda Katoko challenged the election of State Minister for Lands Persis Namuganza, alleging violence, intimidation, pre-ticked ballots and manipulation of results.
The petition raised questions about the conduct of polling and the handling of electoral materials in Bukono County.
The case had progressed to the final stages, with the hearing concluded and final submissions scheduled for November. The dispute was among the significant parliamentary election cases whose outcomes were still being awaited at the reporting cut-off.
Busiki County MP Joel Wiswa Azalwa faced a petition by NRM candidate Paul Akamba, who challenged his election over allegations of violence, pre-ticking of ballot papers and manipulation of results at seven polling stations.
The petitioner argued that the alleged irregularities undermined the integrity of the election and warranted judicial intervention.
The court had scheduled judgment for November 10, 2026. The case remained unresolved at the reporting cut-off.
Former Water Minister Ronald Kibuule challenged the election of Abdallah Kiwanuka in Mukono County North, citing voter bribery, undue influence, defacement of campaign posters and alleged irregularities at polling stations.
Kibuule sought to have the election overturned, arguing that the alleged offences had compromised the electoral process.
The court cleared the way for a substantive hearing after resolving preliminary objections. The case remained among the significant parliamentary election disputes awaiting determination.
Former minister Sarah Achieng Opendi challenged the election of Akoth Angela Nzokire as Tororo District Woman MP in one of the closest parliamentary contests of the 2026 elections.
Nzokire had secured 78,542 votes against Opendi’s 78,507, a difference of just 35 votes.
Opendi maintained that she had won the election but lost through electoral irregularities. The narrow margin made the dispute particularly significant, although the court still had to determine whether the allegations were supported by sufficient evidence to justify overturning the declared result.
The petition challenging the election of Busiro County South MP Kenan Opio came to an end following the death of former candidate Charles Matovu on October 22.
The High Court issued a formal notice of abatement on October 28 under Section 86 of the Parliamentary Elections Act and Rule 20 of the election-petition rules.
The development brought the proceedings to an end without a substantive determination of the allegations against Opio.
It is important to distinguish the abatement of the petition from a judicial finding that the MP’s election was valid on the merits. The case ended because of the petitioner’s death, not because the court heard and rejected his allegations.
The 2026 election disputes have produced different approaches to legal costs, with judges considering the circumstances of each case rather than automatically imposing financial penalties on every unsuccessful petitioner.
Some petitioners have been ordered to pay costs. Margaret Ayebare was ordered to meet the costs of the case against Kyarikunda, while the five Workers’ MPs obtained a costs award against Bhamusangala.
These decisions reflect the financial exposure that comes with bringing unsuccessful litigation.
Other judges have taken a more restrained approach. In the Ssekindi, Uhuru, Ezama and Saazi cases, each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
In Kira Municipality, Justice Okello also declined to impose additional costs on Kananura after the respondents had already obtained an earlier costs award.
The Budaka case illustrates another dimension of the problem. The three MPs and the Electoral Commission sought approximately Shs180 million from Musangala following his withdrawal. That amount was a demand by the respondents, not a confirmed final award.
The Muhwezi case resulted in an award of costs to the Electoral Commission.
The Ssenyonyi-Bwowe case introduced another approach. Instead of making the losing petitioner shoulder the entire financial burden, the court ordered the Electoral Commission to pay a quarter of the legal costs incurred by both Bwowe and Ssenyonyi, recognising the commission’s role in the nomination-document errors that contributed to the dispute.
The emerging pattern is not simply that candidates who lose at the ballot box are losing again in court. It is that the legal process imposes demanding evidentiary and procedural requirements on anyone seeking to overturn an election.
Under Section 79(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, a parliamentary election petition must be filed within 30 days after publication of the election results in the Uganda Gazette.
The consequences of missing those requirements have been demonstrated by Ssempijja’s case. Despite alleging vote rigging, falsification of results and electoral violence, his petition was struck out because it was lodged one day late. The court did not have to decide whether the alleged offences had occurred.
The Workers’ MPs case demonstrated a different procedural obstacle. Bhamusangala’s petition collapsed over legal standing and improper service, including the failure to establish that WhatsApp documents had actually been read by the intended recipients.
The Bwowe-Ssenyonyi dispute, meanwhile, demonstrated that errors by the Electoral Commission do not automatically invalidate an election. The court acknowledged mistakes in the nomination documents but found that they did not provide sufficient legal grounds to overturn the election.
The difficulties are not limited to the courtroom, but extend to challenges with gathering evidence.
The 2026 election-petition decisions reveal three different paths through which parliamentary election disputes are being resolved.
First, courts have upheld elections where petitioners failed to establish that proven irregularities substantially affected the result. Ssekindi, Uhuru, Ruhindi, Tanna, Kyarikunda, Ezama, Nameere and Ssenyonyi fall within this category, although the specific legal reasoning differs from one case to another.
Second, some challenges have ended without a substantive determination because of procedural failures or withdrawals. Ssempijja’s petition was time-barred, the Workers’ MPs successfully raised objections to standing and service, while Kananura and Musangala abandoned their respective cases. Matovu’s petition ended through abatement following his death.
Third, the Gomba East ruling demonstrates that an election can be nullified where the evidence establishes substantial disenfranchisement, even when the court cannot identify the individuals responsible for disrupting polling.
The Ssenyonyi-Bwowe judgment also highlights the Electoral Commission’s responsibility in ensuring that nomination documents are accurately completed. Although the commission’s errors did not result in the nullification of Ssenyonyi’s election, the court’s costs order placed part of the financial responsibility for the dispute on the electoral body.
The distinction matters. An election petition is not simply a second election conducted before a judge. It is a legal process in which allegations must be supported by admissible evidence, the law must be followed and the court must determine whether the established violations justify overturning the declared result.
For the candidates who lost, the court decisions have brought different consequences: financial costs, the loss of legal challenges and, in Gomba East, an opportunity for voters to return to the ballot box.
For those whose elections survived, the judgments have provided judicial confirmation of their parliamentary mandates, subject to any appeals permitted by law.
PLE 2026 Emergency Arrangement: UNEB Rescues 11 Candidates After Registration Blunder as Exams Begin
Kapere Lufotose's Manager Speaks on Comedian's Will as Burial Date is Confirmed; NUP Holding Farewell…
Don't Come to My Burial Ceremony: Comedian Kapere Lufotose Banned Fellow Comedians from Attending His…
Bobi Wine Heartfelt Tribute to Kapere Lufotose: NUP President Praises Fallen Comedian's Patriotism and Beautiful…