The High Court in Iganga, Uganda, has dismissed a petition challenging the victory of State Minister for Lands, Housing and Urban Development Persis Namuganza in the January 15, 2026 general election. Justice Patience Rubagumya ruled that petitioner Emmanuel Maganda Katoko failed to prove that alleged electoral offences and irregularities substantially affected the outcome of the election. As a result, the court upheld Namuganza's election and ordered Maganda to pay the costs of the case.
Namuganza, who contested as an independent candidate after losing the NRM primaries, secured 15,696 votes against Maganda's 14,431, winning by a margin of 1,265 votes. Five other candidates also contested the seat. Maganda had asked the court to nullify the election, accusing the Electoral Commission (EC) of failing to properly manage the electoral process and allowing practices that allegedly favoured the incumbent.
The petitioner alleged several irregularities, including ballot stuffing, multiple voting, discrepancies in declaration of results forms, and unusually high voter turnout figures of 100 per cent at some polling stations. However, Justice Rubagumya acknowledged that irregularities had occurred but found that they were not sufficient to warrant nullification of the election. The court identified mathematical inconsistencies in some Declaration of Results (DR) forms, but noted that the discrepancies had been addressed during tallying.
The judgment also established that violence occurred at Namakoko Catholic Church, Gasani SDA Church, and Kitaigalwa Mosque polling stations. Justice Rubagumya faulted the EC for failing to maintain peace and order at the affected polling stations, contrary to its responsibilities under electoral law. Nevertheless, she concluded that the incidents were not sufficiently significant to invalidate the election.
Maganda also accused Namuganza of voter bribery, alleging that she distributed cash and assorted gifts during the campaign period to influence voters. However, the judge found that Maganda had not presented sufficient evidence linking Namuganza or her agents to the alleged distribution of money and gifts intended to influence voters.
The court further rejected claims that Namuganza had made false statements about Maganda's character with the intention of undermining his chances of winning the election. Justice Rubagumya said the statements cited in the petition had not been properly pleaded and were not supported by sufficient evidence. Maganda's claims that his polling agents and supervisors had been unlawfully detained also failed.
In her final determination, justice Rubagumya held that the petitioner had not established any of the grounds under Section 80(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act that would justify setting aside Namuganza's election. The court's decision has confirmed Namuganza's victory in the Bukono County parliamentary seat.
Key points
- The court found that alleged electoral irregularities did not substantially affect the outcome of the election.
- The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support allegations of voter bribery and other claims.
- The Electoral Commission was faulted for failing to maintain peace and order at some polling stations.
