Nalukoola raises 14 grounds in appeal

Kampala, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT | Erias Nalukoola Luyimbazi has filed an appeal challenging the High Court decision that nullified his election as Kawempe North Member of Parliament.

In his memorandum of appeal lodged before the Court of Appeal in Kampala on Wednesday, Nalukoola raises 14 grounds seeking to overturn the judgment delivered by Justice Bernard Namanya on May 26, 2025, following a successful election petition by the ruling National Resistance Movement’s Faridah Nambi Kigongo who was the runner up in the March 13th polls.

The High Court had nullified Nalukoola’s victory and ordered a fresh election, ruling that the electoral process was marred by serious irregularities which substantially affected the outcome.

Justice Namanya found that the Electoral Commission failed to count, declare, and tally results from 14 polling stations, a lapse that effectively disenfranchised 16,640 registered voters. Among those affected, the court noted, was the petitioner herself, Faridah Nambi. The Judge also held that Nalukoola personally campaigned on election day at two polling stations, namely, Mbogo Primary School Playground and Kazo Angola LC1 Office, in violation of the Parliamentary Elections Act.

The Electoral Commission declared Nalukoola the winner with 17,939 votes, while NRM’s Nambi came second with 9,058 votes. Dissatisfied with the outcome, Nambi filed a petition at the High Court, accusing Nalukoola of multiple electoral offences, including voter bribery, illegal campaigning, and other irregularities.

She alleged that Nalukoola distributed money to sway voters, offering 10,000 shillings to Kyemba Muwanguzi Nathan and 5,000 shillings each to Mawumbe George William and Wamukubira Geoffrey, among others.

While the Electoral Commission, represented by its lawyer Eric Sabiiti, who is in Charge of Litigation, dismissed these claims and maintained that the election was conducted by the law, Justice Namanya ruled otherwise.

The  Civil Division Judge ruled that the Commission’s failure to account for results in key polling stations and Nalukoola’s conduct on polling day amounted to non-compliance with electoral laws and had a substantial effect on the final result.

However, while appealing that decision, Nalukoola argues that the trial Judge erred both in law and fact. He contends that the finding that he campaigned on election day was incorrect, and that he was unjustly denied the right to cross-examine the 19 witnesses whose affidavits supported Nambi’s petition.

He faults the Judge for relying on what he describes as weak and untested affidavit evidence, some of it hearsay, and accuses the court of ignoring key legal precedents. Citing landmark electoral petitions such as Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye vs. Yoweri Museveni (2001 and 2006) and Opendi & Electoral Commission vs. Nyakecho (2011), Nalukoola claims that Justice Namanya reached a decision per incuriam, made in ignorance or disregard of binding law and that this resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

He also argues that the Judge shifted the burden of proof from the petitioner to him, wrongly concluding that he had to disprove allegations of illegality and show that any non-compliance did not substantially affect the results. Nalukoola insists that even if some irregularities occurred, they were not significant enough to change the outcome, given the wide margin by which he defeated Nambi.

In his appeal, Nalukoola is asking the Court of Appeal to set aside the High Court decision, reinstate his election victory, and award him legal costs for both the High Court and appellate proceedings. In the alternative, he requests the appellate court to order a retrial, with the case assigned to a different High Court judge.

Meanwhile, the Electoral Commission has since indicated that it will not appeal the High Court ruling and is already preparing for a possible second by-election in Kawempe North.

Nalukoola’s appeal, however, keeps the matter active and could potentially reverse or delay the planned fresh election.

The matter is yet to be fixed for hearing by a Panel of three Court of Appeal Justices.

***

URN