Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

WORKSHOP ON PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION PETITIONS

TERM FOUR
LDC MBARARA CAMPUS 2024/2025

COMPILED BY MUHUMUZA LIVINGSTON

BRIEF FACTS
On the 30th May 2025 the election commission conducted for Manzi County
Constituency in Gulu District where the election attracted 4 candidates, Otim Bob of
(NRM), Okello Sam (NUP), Odit Bob and Okot Ronald who were Independent in which
Okello Sam was declared the winner with 11468 votes followed by Otim with 11402
votes and Odit scored 1286 votes and Okot scored 188 votes. The Electoral
Commission gazzetted Okello Sam on the 30th October 2025 in the Uganda Gazette
and was duly sworn in and took his seat.
Otim Job and Odit Bob were aggrieved with the results of the nomination, election,
declaration of Okello Sam and the whole electoral process and its outcome where they
stated that Okello Sam‟s academic documents bare names of one Muganza Moses
Ayub and others a one Muganza Moses. It is also alleged that he sent money to voters‟
phones 2 days before his nomination using his phone number Tel. 0711234567
registered in his names as well as those of the recipients. That at one of the polling
stations which is Kabwohe C/U Primary School where Okello‟s agent caused havoc
disrupting the process and on another polling station Okello‟s agent connived with the
presiding officer and poured already ticked votes in the ballot box and on another polling
station there were variances in the total number of votes cast. Odit‟s symbol of a fist
was changed on a ballot paper to a symbol of a handshake, hence confusing his voters.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether Okello Sam’s nomination and declaration by the Electoral commission

as the winner of the parliamentary election of Manzi Constituency was Valid?
2. What pre-election remedies are available in the circumstances?
3. Whether there were non-compliances with electoral laws?
4. Whether the non-compliance substantially affected the outcome of the election?

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 1
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

5. Whether Sam Okello committed any electoral offences that affected the outcome
of the election?
6. What course of action would Otim Job take immediately before Sam Okello is
gazetted by EC and what documents would they file in court?
7. What steps would Sam take to protect his seat upon receipt of service of
process?
8. What are the conditions and procedure available for withdrawal of an election
petition?
9. What remedies are available to Otim Job in these circumstances?
10. What additional information is required in the circumstances?

LAW APPLICABLE
1. The 1995 constitution of the Republic of Uganda as Amended
2. The Parliamentary Elections Act, Cap 177
3. The Election Commission Act, Cap 176
4. The Evidence Act, Cap 8
5. The Uganda Examination Board Act, Cap 257
6. The Civil Procedure Act Cap. 282
7. The Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1
8. Relevant Case law

RESOLUTION
Whether Okello Sam’s nomination and declaration by the Electoral Commission
as the winner of the parliamentary election of Manzi Constituency was Valid?
The mandate given by Article 60 of the Constitution establishes the Electoral
Commission whose functions are stipulated under Article 61 which among others
includes ensuring that regular, free and fair elections are held and organizing,
conducting and supervising elections and referenda in accordance with the Constitution.

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 2
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Additionally, Article 80 (1) (C) of the 1995 Ugandan Constitution and Section 4 of
the Parliamentary Election Act Cap 177 (PEA) provide for the validity of nomination of
a parliamentary candidate to include.
a) The person must be a citizen of Uganda,
b) A Registered voter
c) Must have completed minimum formal education of Advanced level or its
equivalent
It is important to note that Section 30 (c) of the Parliamentary Election Act (PEA)
CAP 177 provides that a person shall not be regarded as duly nominated if that person
seeking the nomination was not qualified for the election under Section 4 of the same
Act.
Thus, a requirement of formal education today is a must. Formal education is defined
under Section 3 of the Education (Pre-primary, Primary and Post Primary) Act Cap
247 to mean a package of learning made available by the recognized schools and
institutions following the approved curriculum standards and guidelines.
This means that for a candidate to be nominated, they must have all education
certificates, and failure to have any automatically nullifies the nomination as per the
case of Paul Mwiru V Hon Igeme Nathan Nabeta Samson And 2 Ors, Election
petition Appeal NO.06/2011, where the court held that failure to meet the requisite
academic qualifications is a ground for the nullification of the election.
These academic certificates not issued by UNEB must be equated as per Section 4 (1)
(e) of the UNEB Act Cap 259, provides that UNEB must determine the equivalence of
the qualification awarded by another examination board in consultation with that
examining body. In the case of Okello P. Charles Engola and EC V Ayena Odongo
Krispus Charles Consolidated Election Petition Appeal No 26 and 94 of 2016, the
court stated that a candidate has to present to EC a certificate of equivalence issued by
NCHE in consultation with UNEB. It therefor follows that before NCHE equates any
qualifications to A‟ Level, it must consult from UNEB failure of which renders the whole
system fatal.
According to the facts, Sam Okello held 3 Certificates with qualifications duly equated
by NCHE and not UNEB. When Otim Job wrote to UNEB, they wrote back saying that it
does not know of the existence of such qualifications in Uganda nor has it ever seen
any qualifications of such from that institution, hence UNEB could not confirm the value
of the said qualifications.
Therefore, subject to the above provisions of the law, Okello Sam's academic
documents were not properly equated, and neither was a certificate of equivalence
Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 3
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

given to the Electoral Commission as a qualification for one to be nominated as a

member of parliament.
Secondly, there was variation in the names of the nominated candidate. It is until
further investigations are done to see whether the names are lawfully changed. This
was not followed by the EC to get an informed decision to fully nominate Sam Okello.
In conclusion therefore, the nomination of Okello Sam was illegal because it did not
conform to the law that governs electoral process.

What pre-election remedies are available in the circumstances?

The pre-election remedies are provided for under Section 32 of the PEA cap 177
provides that a voter registered on the voters' roll of a constituency may inspect the
nomination paper on the day of nomination or after the nomination within a reasonable
time or lodge any complaint with the returning officer of the Commission to any
nomination in respect of the constituency challenging the qualifications of any person
nominated.
Section 15(1) of ECA cap 176 provides that in case of any complaints presented in
regards to the irregularities which is not resolved by the lower level of authority shall be
resolved by the commission and take decisions where appropriate. The procedure to
the commission can be by ordinary letter.
Where such a decision under this section s entered and the party to the complaint is
aggrieved shall appeal to the High Court as of right. However, the decision of the High
Court thereof shall be final and not appealable.
Given the facts, Job and Bob may lodge a complaint with the returning officer or the
Commission challenging the nomination and declaration of Okello Sam.

Whether there was any non-compliance with electoral laws by the EC and Sam
Okello?

Article 61(1) provides for the functions of the EC, which include ensuring that regular,
free and fair elections are held, organizing, conducting and supervising elections and
referenda in accordance with the Constitution. The same position in Hon. Abdul
Katuntu Vs Hon. Kirunda Kivejinja Ali & EC HCEP No. 7/2006)

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 4
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Section12 (1) (j) of the ECA empowers the EC to ensure compliance by all election
officers and candidates with the provisions of the Act or any other law.

1. Actions and omissions of the EC

a) Making wrong returns of the election
According to Section 97 of the PEA Cap 177, any election officer or other person
having any duty to perform about an election who makes in any record, return or other
document which he or she is required to keep or make under the Act, any entry which
he or she knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false is found to be in
contravention with this Act.
b) Choice of symbols on nomination
Section 34 (1) (b) of the Parliamentary Elections Act Cap 177 provides that where
an election is contested, the commission shall, as soon as practicable after the
nomination, allocate a candidate who is not sponsored by a political party or
organization, a symbol or color chosen by him or her.
Additionally, Section 34(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, Cap 177, provides
that a symbol or color shall be chosen or assigned for this section from among symbols
and colors approved by the commission.
More so, Section 34(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act Cap 177 provides that a
person shall not be allocated a symbol or color which has a tribal or religious affiliation
or any other Sectarian connotation.
This means that failure to observe this law there will be non-compliance by the EC.
From the facts, Odit Bob informs you that at the time of nomination, he chose the
symbol of a fist, and on the ballot paper, he was allocated the symbol of a handshake of
two hands. He believes this affected his votes polled at the said elections since his
voters were confused by the symbol.
c) Ballot stuffing.
Section 86 (f) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, Cap 177, provides that a person
who knowingly and intentionally puts into a ballot box anything other than the ballot
paper which he or she is authorized to put in, commits an offence.

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 5
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Ballot stuffing was defined in Toolkit Simon Akecha v. Oulanya Jacob L’Okori and
Another EPA No. 19 of 2011 as „Ballot stuffing therefore is an election malpractice
which involves voting more than once at a polling station or moving to various polling
stations casting votes either in the names of people who did not exist at all or those who
are dead or are absent at the time of voting and yet they are recorded to have voted.
From the facts, in Kasubi 1 polling station, Otim stated that the NUP polling agent,
Basudde Thomas, in connivance with the presiding officer, Kitone James poured
already ticked votes in the ballot box, which amounts to ballot stuffing.
Based on paragraph 5 of the facts, Okello Sam‟s agent connived with the Presiding
officer, Kitone James, at a polling station called Kasubi 1 polling station and poured
already ticked ballots into the ballot box, which did not tally with the number of voters
that turned up, and was later included in the declaration of the results.
In the same polling station of Kasubi 1, the voters stated that to have voted for female
MP, and the results are less by 160 votes than those cast for the contested election,
which also brings about variance in the total number of votes cast. The failure of the EC
to keep a consistent number of cast shows non-compliance which is actionable under
the law.
d) Counting Votes
Section 66(1) of PEA Cap 177 provides that votes cast at a polling station shall be
counted at the polling station immediately after the presiding officer declares the polling
closed, and the votes cast in favour of each candidate shall be recorded separately.
Election interruptions under Section 76 of the PEA can be among other things can stop
the vote counting however the same section provides that where there is an
interruption, the returning officer or the presiding officer in which case it maybe shall
postpone the counting. The failure to do that is an omission which amounts to non-
compliance within the meaning of the law.
This has been termed as disenfranchisement. This refers to the act of denying or
restricting a person or group‟s right to vote or even to access any information in political
elections.
In the case of Nambi Faridah Kigongo v Luyimbazi Elias Nalukoola and Electoral
Commission (Election Petition No. 1 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCD 58 (26 May 2025) the
court at page 43 citing the case of Chebrot Stephen Chemoiko v. Soyekwo Kenneth
(at p23 of the Judgment), where counting of votes was disrupted at a polling station,
and results at that polling station were not included in the final tally of the results, the
court held that:

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 6
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

“Disenfranchisement of voters is one of the instances of non-compliance

which may result into an election being set aside if it is proved that the
non-compliance affected the results of an election in substantial manner.
The right to vote is a constitutional right and denial of the same is against
the principles underlying a free and fair election.”
From the facts, Otim Job stated that on the polling stations of Kabwohe C/U primary
school, Okello‟s agent caused havoc in the middle of vote counting, where the NRM
candidate was already having 200 votes counted as opposed to the NUP‟s candidate,
who only had 18 votes. The interruption happened when the presiding officer was left
with about 10 votes to count. Due to the interruption, the vote counting ended, and the
results of that polling station were not included.
This non-compliance substantially affected the results of the election.

Whether the non-compliance substantially affected the outcome of the election?

In resolving this issue one must consider the two tests

a) Qualitative substantiality test

It relates with the quality of the election conducted especially the EC. This goes to the
mandate of the EC as it‟s supposed to have a clean and fair election as per Article 61(a)
& (b) of the constitution.

b) Quantitative substantiality test

This is the test that deals with the disruption that came in by the agent of Sam where
Otim had 200 votes and Sam 18 votes when only 10 votes were remaining. Owing to
the fact these were not done in accordance with the law this affected the outcome of the
election.

Section 76 of the PEA cap 177 allows the returning officer to postpone the counting in
case of an interruption but he did not do so. This was a non-compliance that
substantially affected the election.

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 7
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Thus, the non-compliance as discussed in the preceding issue affected the election in a
substantial manner.

Whether Sam Okello committed any illegal practices or electoral offences that
affected the outcome of the election?

Part XI and XII of the Parliamentary Elections Act, Cap 177, provide for illegal practices
and election offences associated with the election process. These electoral offences are
not subjected to substantiality test but actions of non-compliance. These include the
following
a) Bribery
Section 87 of the PEA prohibits a candidate from directly or indirectly, or through his
agents, from bribing a voter or any election officer before or during the election.
The Supreme Court in Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye V YK Museveni & The EC No. 1
of 2001 laid 3 ingredients that must be present for this offence to suffice.
a) A gift was given to a registered voter
b) The gift was given by a candidate and or his recognized agent
c) The gift was given to the registered voter with the intention of inducing the person
to vote or refrain from voting.
Based on paragraph 3 of the facts, it was established that Okello Sam, two days before
the nomination, sent money to voters claiming that he was thanking them and it was
also established that the money was sent directly from the mobile number of Okello
since his Telephone number is registered in his name.
Another voter called Oyuyi Sam equally received the said money, all for the same
cause. Therefore, these ingredients are present in the circumstances.
In all the scenarios there was an inducement indirectly which amounts to an offence.

b) Forgery of certificates of academic qualifications

Section 5 of the PEA Cap177 creates an offence for a person who forges any
academic certificate for purposes of nomination for an election, or utters such a forged
certificate, or forges a certificate purporting it to be issued by the NCHE and UNEB.

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 8
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Similarly, Section 12 (9) of the Electoral Commission Act Cap 176 creates an
offence for any person who, without a reasonable excuse, provides information which
he or she knows to be false or has no reason to believe that it is true.
According to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the facts, Okello Sam was nominated on the 13th
day of April 2025 with qualifications in the name of Muganza Moses Ayub, having
obtained an O-Level certificate from NCHE, and later did three certificates in plumbing,
electrical, and engineering structural design, respectively, in the name of Moses
Muganza from Kyambogo Polytechnic Institute. The above-mentioned names on the
academic documents do not match the names of Okello Sam, who was nominated
based on the same documents, hence creating discrepancies.
Furthermore, upon writing to UNEB to verify and compare the said academic
qualifications, UNEB wrote back stating that such qualifications were not recognized by
any institution in Uganda.
In Wakayima Musoke Nsereko V Ssebunya Kasule Robert Election Petition Appeal
No. 50 & 102 (b) of 2016 held that discrepancies and inconsistencies in academic
documents can be a valid ground to invalidate a candidate's nomination.

c) Obstruction of Election Officers

According to Section 102 of PEA Cap177, it creates offence for any person who
willfully obstructs or interferes with an election officer in the execution of the officer‟s
duty.
Paragraph 4 of the facts clearly shows that at a polling station at Kabwohe C/U Primary
School a polling station which had the highest number of voters registered in Manzi
Constituency, one of Okello‟s agents caused Havoc in the middle of the counting of the
votes where the NRM candidate already had 200 votes whereas Okello had only 18
votes and when the presiding officer had only 10 votes left to count the process was
disrupted and the counting ended and as such the results from that polling station were
never included.
In Kyagulanyi Robert Sentamu V The EC & YK Museveni E.P No. 1 of 2021, the
Court emphasized that any actions that confuse, disrupt peace, and cause
disorganization to the election process are prohibited and considered illegal practices.
Other illegal practices
 Procuring prohibited persons to vote (Section 88 of the PEA)
 Publication of false statements as to illness, death or withdrawal of a candidate
(Section 89 of the PEA)

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 9
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

 Obstruction of voters (Section 90 of the PEA)

One must note that Section 91of the PEA provides for penalties of all the offences
thereto listed and it shall be 48 currency points or imprisonment to a term not exceeding
2 years.
NB: All these offences must be conducted by the candidate himself or the agents of the
candidates with the knowledge of the candidates. Failure to link the two then the
candidate shall not be responsible. One must also be able to prove who a recognized
agent is.

What course of action would Bob and Job take immediately before Okello Sam is
gazetted by the EC and what documents would they file in court?
A) Recounting the Votes

1) This is by an application to the Chief Magistrate Court for a recount

Section 74 PEA CAP 177, states that lodging an Application to the chief magistrate‟s
court for an order for a recount, shall be made within 7 days after a returning officer has
declared the winner as it was held in the case of Ngoma Ngime V Winnie Byanyima
EPA No. 11/2002 where court stated that a recount cannot be available where a name
of a winning candidate has been sworn in as the Member of Parliament.
2) The essence of recounting of votes
It is to deal with the process that was not done and not be on a fishing expedition. This
was the decision of Kamba Saleh Vs Namuyangu Jennifer Byakatonda C/A No. 19
of 2011. The court held that court cannot scrutinize all the votes cast in favor of
candidates who are in tens and thousands nor can it go in the ballot boxes on a hunting
expedition into the hope that it will by chance land on ballot papers in favor of the
Applicant that there were uncounted votes.
3) The Procedure for an Application for the recount of votes under this
section
The Procedure for an Application for a recount of votes is by way of Notice of Motion
supported by an Affidavit as stipulated under ORDER 52 R. 1 and 3 of the CPR
and the supplementary Affidavit of the polling Agents.
4) Practical Steps

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 10
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

i) The chief Magistrate shall appoint the time to recount the votes, which time
shall be 4days after receipt of the application, and it shall be conducted under
the directions of the Chief Magistrate's court
ii) The Applicant shall deposit with the Chief Magistrate security for costs of
thirty currency points as prescribed under Section 74 (3) of the PEA Cap.
177.
5) The documents:
 Notice of motion
 An affidavit

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF GULU AT GULU

ELECTIONS CAUSE NO…….…… OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, CAP 177

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS HELD ON THE 30TH DAY

OF MAY 2025 IN MANZI COUNTY CONSTITUENCY, GULU DISTRICT

OTIM JOB ===================================== APPLICANT

VERSUS

OKELLO SAM & THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION ============= RESPONDENTS

NOTICE OF MOTION
(Brought under section 74 of the Parliamentary Elections Act Cap 177 and Order 52
rule 1, 2 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules SI 71-1)

TAKE NOTICE that this Honorable Court shall be moved on the………….day of

……………… 2025 at ……………O‟clock in the fore/afternoon or soon thereafter as
Counsel for the Applicant can be heard on an application for Orders that;

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 11
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

1. That this honorable court be pleased to order the recount of votes cast in the
Parliamentary elections conducted on 30th May 2025 for Manzi County
Constituency in Gulu District.

2. That the said recount be conducted by the 2nd Respondent under the supervision
of this Honorable Court and in the presence of all the parties and their duly
appointed representatives/agents.

3. That the 2nd Respondent avails all the necessary materials, including ballot
boxes, ballot papers, tally sheets, declaration of results forms, and voter‟s
registers, for the recount.

4. That the recount be carried out in respect of all polling stations in Manzi County
Constituency in Gulu District or specifically at Kabwohe C/U Primary School and
Kasubi 1 polling station, as the case may be.

5. That the results of the recount be filed in this Honorable Court for purposes of
determining the true winner of the said election.

6. That the costs of this application be provided for.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the grounds of this application are contained in the
supporting affidavit of Otim Job, the 1st Applicant herein, which shall be read and relied
upon at the hearing, but briefly are.
1. That on the 30th day of May 2025, the 2nd Respondent (Electoral Commission)
conducted parliamentary elections across the country, including for Manzi County
Constituency in Gulu District.

2. That there were four candidates for Manzi County in this run, namely Otim Job
(NRM), who scored 11402 votes, Okello Sam (NUP) with 11468 votes, Odit Bob
(independent) with 1286, and Okot Ronald (independent) with 188 votes.

3. That during the process, Okello‟s agent caused havoc in the middle of vote
counting at Kabwohe C/U primary school polling station, which polling station has
the highest number of registered voters.

4. That after the disruption, the whole exercise of vote counting ended, and the
results of that polling station were not included

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 12
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

5. That this application has been brought before this honorable court without any
delays.

6. That the 1st Applicant is willing to pay the security for the costs of this application.

7. That it is in the interests of justice, fairness, and equity that this application is
granted.

DATED at Kampala this …..…….. day of ……………………. 2025.

…………………………………………………..
(M/s Kaswabuli & Co. Advocates)
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANTS

GIVEN under my hand and Seal of this Honorable Court this ……...... day
of……………………….. 2025.

………………………………………………..
MAGISTRATE

Drawn & Filed By:

M/s Kaswabuli & Co. Advocates
Plot No. 102
Mukwano Road Kampala

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 13
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT OF GULU AT GULU

ELECTIONS CAUSE NO…….…… OF 2025

IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT, CAP 177

AND

IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS HELD ON THE 30TH DAY

OF MAY 2025 IN MANZI COUNTY CONSTITUENCY, GULU DISTRICT

OTIM JOB===================================== APPLICANT

VERSUS

OKELLO SAM & THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION============= RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
I, Otim Job of C/o M/s Kaswabuli & Co. Advocates, Plot No. 102, Mukwano Road,
Kampala, do solemnly make oath and state as follows;

1. That I am a male adult Ugandan of Sound mind, a registered voter, the 1 st

Applicant and a candidate in the recently conducted parliamentary elections for
Manzi County Constituency in Gulu District, and I swear this Affidavit in that
capacity.

2. That on the 30th day of May 2025, the 2nd Respondent conducted parliamentary
elections across the country, including for Manzi County Constituency in Gulu
District.

3. That I and three other candidates, to wit: Okello Sam (NUP), Odit Bob
(independent), and Okot Ronald (independent), vied for the parliamentary seat
for Manzi County Constituency in Gulu District.

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 14
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

4. That during the process, the 2nd Respondent‟s agent caused havoc in the middle
of vote counting at Kabwohe C/U primary school polling station, which has the
highest number of registered voters.

5. That at the time of the disruption, I already had 200 votes counted as opposed to
the 1st Respondent, who only had 18 votes, and the presiding officer remained
with only 10 votes to count.

6. That to my dismay, after the disruption started, the whole exercise of vote
counting ended, and the results of that polling station were not included.

7. That at the end of tallying, the 2nd Respondent declared the 1st Respondent as
the duly elected member of parliament for Manzi County Constituency in Gulu
district with 11468 votes, followed by me with 11402 votes (NRM), followed by
Odit Bob (independent) with 1,286 votes, and Okot Ronald (independent) with
188 votes.

8. That from the onset, the difference between my votes and those of the 1 st
Respondent is only 66 votes, which is unjustifiable.

9. That during the process at Kasubi 1 polling station, the 1st Respondent‟s polling
agent one Basude Thomas, in connivance with Kitone James the presiding
officer on behalf of the 2nd Respondent poured already ticked votes in the ballot
box and the number of votes in the ballot box do not tally with the number of
voters who turned up on the voting day.

10. That I have brought this application before this Honorable Court without any
delays, seeking to recount the votes.

11. That I have deposited a sum of UGX. 600,000/= (Uganda Shillings Six
Hundred thousand only) with this Honorable Court as security for costs.

12. That whatever I have stated above is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

13. That it is in the interests of justice, fairness, and equity that this application is
granted.

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 15
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

SWORN at Mbarara this ……………. Day of ………………. 2025

By the said
OTIM JOB
……………………….
DEPONENT

BEFORE ME
……………………………………………
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

Drawn & Filed By:

M/s Kaswabuli & Co. Advocates
Plot No. 102
Mukwano Road Kampala

B) Mandatory recount before a returning officer (in case it applies in a case

given)
According to Section 73 of the Parliamentary Election ACT (PEA) CAP 177, it
provides for a mandatory recounting of the votes.
i) There is equality in the votes between two or more candidates obtaining the
highest number of votes, or
ii) The number of votes separating the candidates receiving the highest number
of votes and any other candidate is less than 50
The returning officer shall, if requested in writing by the candidate or his/her agent or a
voter registered to vote in the constituency, in the presence of the senior police officer,
recount the votes after giving a written notice of the intention to recount to all the
interested parties.

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 16
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

The procedure for a mandatory recount is by way of a Formal letter to the Returning
Officer as per section 73 of the ACT.
This position was reiterated in Betty Muzanira v Matsiko Winfred Komuhangi, the
returning officer of Rukungiri and the EC EPA NO. 65 of 2016.
Relating to the facts given, under paragraph 1, Otim Job scored 11432 votes while
Okello Sam scored 11468 votes, creating a difference of 36 votes, and therefore Otim
Job has a right to apply for a Mandatory recounting under the provisions of Section 73
PEA cap 177.
Furthermore, Section 73(2) of the PEA CAP 177, provides that where the recount under
this section results in equality of votes among two or more candidates obtaining the
highest number of votes, a run-off election shall be held involving only the candidates
with equal votes and a run-off election shall take place in less than 30 days from the
date of recount.

What steps would Sam take to protect his seat upon receipt of service of
process?
Rule 7(1) of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) (Election Petitions)
Rules S.I 141-2 provides the Respondent must provide the Registrar with a written and
signed address within 7 days of being served a petition, where documents related to the
proceedings can be sent.
Rule 8(1) of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) (Election Petitions)
Rules S.I 141-2 provides the Respondent shall provide an Answer to the Petition within
10 days after it was served.
The Answer shall be accompanied by an Affidavit as per Rule 8(3)(a) of the Rules
which will contain the facts he wishes to rely on.
The Answer shall be filed in 6 copies for use by court and service on the Returning
Officer per Rule 8(2) of the Rules as Amended.
Assess and pay requisite fees Ugx. 50,000/= and file the Answer.
Serve a copy of the Answer to the Petitioner within 5 days after filing the reply as per
Rule 8(4) of the Rules.
Where there is need for further and better particulars, the Respondent shall apply for
them together with the Answer as per Rule 8(5) of the Rules.

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 17
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

In the given facts, Okello Sam to protect his seat will file his Answer to the Petition after
the Petition is served. The Affidavit will contain facts he will rely on about the election
process that took place in the constituency.

What are the conditions and procedure for withdrawal of an election petition?
Section 84 of the Parliamentary Elections Act Cap 177 provides for withdrawal of
election petitions.
In instances where a petitioner intends to withdraw an election petition, they need leave
of High Court and notice has to be given as court may direct as per Section 84(1) of
Cap 177 and Rule 22 (1) of the Parliamentary Elections ( Interim Provisions)
(Election Petitions) Rules.
However, Rule 22(2) is to the effect that where there is more than one petitioner, no
application for leave shall be made except with the consent of other petitioners.
Conditions subject to intention of withdrawal of election petition
 Applying for leave of court
 Consent of other petitioners if there is more than one petitioner
 Give sufficient copies of the application for leave to the registrar.
In Alinaitwe Robert V Kamukama Davis and Others Misc. Application No. 82 of
2021, court took into consideration for leave to withdraw the Petition that there was no
objection to the withdrawal of the Application with each party bearing its costs as long
as the Respondents were not subjected to such or any other frivolous or vexatious
applications of the same nature.
Other things that court would take into consideration is that the withdrawal is free and
voluntary, it does not undermine public interest in the integrity of the elections and no
illegal consideration like bribery, corruption, coercion and compromise motivated the
withdrawal.
Court also emphasized that election petitions do not only involve the petitioner but also
public interest in a free and fair election. Therefore strict compliance with the withdrawal
procedure under the Act is required.

Procedure for withdrawing an election Petition

Forum
The High Court or It will be the court where the petition was filed.

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 18
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Procedure
Apply for leave of court to withdraw the petition with the consent of other petitioners in
case of more than one petitioner.
Application to seek court‟s leave to withdraw will be by way of Notice of Motion under
Order 52 Rule 1 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1)
Support the application for leave with an affidavit of the petitioner or his or her advocate
if any (Rule 22(3)
The Affidavit shall state the grounds for withdraw and it shall also state;
That to the best of their knowledge and belief no agreement or terms of any kind has
been made or undertaking made in relation to the petition. If any law full agreement has
been made and stating the terms of the agreement.
Give a sufficient number of copies of the application for leave to the registrar who shall
be used by court and service on the respondents. (Rule 22 (4))
Upon receipt of the application for withdraw of petition, the registrar shall serve a copy
of it on the Respondents and cause it to be posted on the court notice board and
published. (Notice in Form B in the schedule) of the Rules.
The AG or the representative may appear at the hearing and oppose the withdrawal and
the court may receive evidence of any person if the AG or his representative finds it
material. (Rule 22(6))
Incase court gives leave for the withdrawal, the court shall make a report to the
commission stating the reasons for withdrawal.
The petitioner shall be liable to pay the costs of the Respondent as per Section 84(4) of
the Act.
In conclusion, Otim Job and Odit Bob can file an application seeking leave to withdraw
the Petition as provided by the law.
Documents
1. Notice of motion
2. Affidavit in support
3. Notice of application to withdraw. ( Form B)

What remedies are available to Otim Job in the circumstances?

a) Filing an Election Petition
Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 19
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Section 79(2) of PEA Cap 177 provides that an election petition may be filed by a
candidate who loses an election; or registered voter in the constituency concerned
supported by the signatures of not less than five hundred (500) voters registered in the
constituency in a manner prescribed by the regulations”.

Sect 79(3) of PEA Cap 177 provides that every petition shall be filed within thirty days
after the day on which the result of the election is published by the commission in the
Gazette.

b) Grounds for setting aside election

Section 80 (1) of PEA Cap 177 provides that:

“(1) The election of a candidate as a member of Parliament shall only be set aside on
any of the following grounds if proved to the satisfaction of the court—

(a) non-compliance with the provisions of this Act relating to elections, if the court is
satisfied that there has been failure to conduct the election in accordance with the
principles laid down in those provisions and that the non-compliance and the failure
affected the result of the election in a substantial manner;

(b) that a person other than the one elected won the election; or

(c) that an illegal practice or any other offence under this Act was committed in
connection with the election by the candidate personally or with his or her knowledge
and consent or approval; or

(d) that the candidate was at the time of his or her election not qualified or was
disqualified for election as a member of Parliament.”

Sect 80(2) of Cap 177 provides that where an election is set aside a fresh election shall
be held as if it were a by election.

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 20
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Sect 80(3) of Cap 177 provides that a ground to set aside an election shall be proved
on the balance of probabilities.

Reliefs sought

Sect 82 (4) of Cap 177 provides that after due inquiry, the court hearing an election
petition may

(a) Dismiss the petition

(b) Declare that a candidate other than the candidate declared elected was validly
elected or
(c) Set aside the election and order a new election.

Sect 82(5) of Cap 177 provides that the high court may before coming to a decision
under subsection 4 order a recount of the votes cast.

In Hajji Kirunda kivejinja v Abdul Katuntu Election petition appeal no 24 of 2006, it

was stated that

a) “An election is deemed free and fair when it is held in an atmosphere of

freedom and fairness that will permit will of the electorate to prevail.

b) an election which is manned by widespread violence, torture and

intimidation cannot be said to be free and fair.

c) That in its broader meaning, the term entails an election where there is
sufficient time given at all stages of the [Link] nominations,
campaigns, voting and counting of votes.

From the facts, there were irregularities and anomalies in the election to wit ballot
stuffing at Kasubi 1 Polling Station, bribery of voters and disenfranchisement of voters
at Kabwohe C/U Primary School Polling Station which substantially affected the
outcome of the election, there fore Otim Job can file a petition to set aside the election
against Okello Sam and the Electoral Commission.

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 21
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

What is the forum, procedure and the necessary documents?

Forum:
High Court of Uganda
Article 86(1) of the 1995 Constitution as amended and Section 79(1) of PEA gives
the High court with the power to entertain Parliamentary Election Petitions. It is usually
filed in the Civil Division of the High Court.
Procedure
1- The Procedure is by way of a Petition in the prescribed form under Rule 4 (1) of
the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) (Election Petitions) Rules
SI 141-2
2- Must pay a prescribed fee of UGX150, 000 (Rule 5 (3) of the Parliamentary
Elections (Interim Provisions) (Election Petitions) Rules SI 141-2)
3- Under S. 79 (3) of PEA Cap 177 requires every Election petition to be filed
within 30 days after the day the day on which the result of the election is
published by the commission in the Gazette‟
4- Sect 81 of PEA Cap 177 provides that the Notice of the Petition together with a
copy of the petition must be served on the Respondent within 7 days after the
filing of the Petition.
5- Rule 4(8) provides that the petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit setting
out the facts on which the petition is based together with a list of any documents
on which the petitioner intends to rely
Documents
Petition
Affidavit in Support
Summary of Evidence
Notice of presentation of Petition.

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 22
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT GULU
ELECTION PETITION NO……….… OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT CAP 177
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS HELD ON THE 30TH DAY
OF MAY 2025 IN MANZI COUNTY CONSTITUENCY, GULU DISTRICT

1. OTIM JOB
2. ODIT BOB =========================PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. OKELLO SAM
2. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION====================RESPONDENTS

NOTICE OF PRESENTATION OF PETITION

(Under Section 81 of the Parliamentary Elections Act Cap 177)

WHEREAS the above mentioned Petitioners have filed a petition against you upon the
claim, the particulars of which are set out in the copy of the petition attached herewith.

YOU ARE HEREBY required to file an answer to the petition within 7 days from the
date of service of these summons and the petition on you.

TAKE NOTICE that if you or your agent/representative or any person authorised by law
to appear on your behalf, does not appear, then this matter will be heard in your
absence and judgement entered against you.

LODGED in the Registry of this Honourable Court this................day of

………………………. 2025

..........................................................

REGISTRAR

Extracted by:
M/s Kaswabuli & Co. Advocates
Plot No. 102
Mukwano Road Kampala

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 23
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT GULU
ELECTION PETITION NO……….… OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT CAP 177
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS HELD ON THE 30TH DAY
OF MAY 2025 IN MANZI COUNTY CONSTITUENCY, GULU DISTRICT

1. OTIM JOB =========================PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. SAM OKELLO
2. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION====================RESPONDENTS

PETITION

The humble petition of Otim Job, whose address for service for purposes of this petition
is M/s Kaswabuli & Co. Advocates, Plot 102 Mukwano Road, Kampala, showeth as
follows:

1. That the Petitioner is male adult Ugandan of sound mind, a registered voter and
a candidate in the recently concluded parliamentary elections for Manzi County
Constituency, Gulu District

2. That on the 30th day of May 2025 the 2nd Respondent conducted parliamentary elections
across the country including for Manzi County Constituency in Gulu District.

3. That the Petitioners, the 1st Respondent and, and Okot Ronald vied for the parliamentary
seat for Manzi County Constituency in Gulu District.

4. That on the election was carried out and the 2nd Respondent through the
Returning Officer, declared Okello Sam the winner with 11,468 votes; followed
by the 1st Petitioner with 11,402 votes, the 2nd Petitioner with 1,286 votes, and
Okot Ronald with 188 votes.

5. That on the 30th day of July 2025, the 2nd Respondent gazetted the 1st
Respondent as duly elected Member of Parliament for Manzi County

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 24
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Constituency. The 1st Respondent has since been sworn in and has taken his
seat in Parliament.(A copy of the gazette is attached hereto and marked “A”)

6. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the nomination, election and declaration of the
1st Respondent by the 2nd Respondent as the duly elected Member of Parliament
for Manzi County Constituency and challenge the same on the following grounds;

a) The 1st Respondent did not possess the minimum academic

qualifications prescribed by the law at the time of his nomination.

b) The 1st Respondent was nominated on 28th April 2025 using

qualifications in the names Muganza Moses Ayub, having
obtained O‟level by UNEB in those names, but later obtained three
(3) certificates in plumbing, electrical, and engineering
structural design in the names Moses Muganza.

c) The said certificates were equated to A„level by NCHE, but when

UNEB was written to by the 1st Petitioner and UNEB denied
knowledge of such qualifications and stated it had never seen or
confirmed the said qualifications.

d) The discrepancies in names and the lack of UNEB confirmation

show that the 1st Respondent did not have valid academic
qualifications required for one under the law.

e) The 1st Respondent is guilty of the illegal practice of conducted

during the electoral process.

f) There was material change in the symbols used by the

candidates that confused the voters and the same conduct
affected the outcome of the election.

7. There was non-compliance with the provisions of the law during the conduct of
the election.

8. The 2nd Respondent at different polling stations failed to take necessary

measures to have a peaceful and fair election when its agents engaged in vote
rigging and election malpractice.

9. The voters stated to have voted for the female Member of Parliament and the
President at some polling stations are less by 160 votes than the votes cast for
the contested election by the Petitioners yet all elections were on the same day.

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 25
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

10. The illegal practices, non-compliance and lack of qualifications by the 1st
Respondent substantially affected the results of the election and unlawfully
benefited.

WHEREFORE, your humble Petitioners pray that this Honourable Court be pleased to;

a) Declare that the 1st Respondent did not possess the minimum academic
qualifications at the time of his nomination.
b) Declare that there was non-compliance with the electoral laws which
substantially affected the results of the election.
c) Declare that the 1st Respondent is guilty of electoral offences.
d) Nullify the election of the 1st Respondent as Member of Parliament for Manzi
County Constituency.
e) In the alternative, declare the 1st Petitioner, Otim Job, as the duly elected
Member of Parliament for Manzi County Constituency.
f) Order that a fresh election be conducted for Manzi County Constituency.
g) Order the Respondents to pay the costs of this petition.

DATED at Kampala this ………………. day of ……………………….. 2025

……………………………………
M/s Kaswabuli & Co. Advocates
PETITIONERS

Drawn & Filed By:

M/s Kaswabuli & Co. Advocates
Plot 102 Mukwano Road
P.O. Box 357, Kampala

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT GULU
ELECTION PETITION NO……….… OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT CAP 177
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS HELD ON THE 30TH DAY
OF MAY 2025 IN MANZI COUNTY CONSTITUENCY, GULU DISTRICT

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 26
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

1. OTIM JOB
2. ODIT BOB =================================PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1. OKELLO SAM
2. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION====================RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT
I, Otim Job of C/o M/s Kaswabuli & Co. Advocates, Plot No. 102, Mukwano Road Kampala,
do solemnly make oath and state as follows;

14. That I am a male adult Ugandan of Sound mind, a registered voter, the 1 st Applicant and
a candidate in the recently conducted parliamentary elections for Manzi County
Constituency in Gulu District and I swear this Affidavit in that capacity.

15. That on the 30th day of May 2025 the 2nd Respondent conducted parliamentary elections
across the country including for Manzi County Constituency in Gulu District.

16. That myself and three other candidates to wit; Okello Sam (NUP), Odit Bob
(independent) and Okot Ronald (independent) vied for the parliamentary seat for Manzi
County Constituency in Gulu District.

17. That on the 30th day of May, 2025, Parliamentary Elections for Manzi
County Constituency were conducted, and the 1st Respondent, Okello
Sam, was declared elected with 11,468 votes against my 11,402 votes. (A
copy of the Declaration of Results Form is hereto attached and marked
Annexture “A”)

18. That I verily believe that the 1st Respondent was not validly nominated,
having presented academic documents in the names of Muganza Moses
Ayub and Moses Muganza, which were inconsistent and irregular. (Copies of
the said documents are hereto attached and marked Annexture “B”).

19. That upon inquiry with the Uganda National Examinations Board (UNEB), I
confirmed that UNEB does not recognize or equate the said qualifications,
thereby rendering the nomination of the 1st Respondent invalid. (A copy of
UNEB’s communication is hereto attached and marked Annexture “C”)

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 27
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

20. That I further discovered a variance of about 160 votes between the votes
cast for President, Woman Member of Parliament, and those for directly
elected Member of Parliament at some of the polling stations, although the
three elections were held simultaneously. (Extracts of tally sheets are
hereto attached and marked Annexture “F”).

21. That during the process, the 2nd Respondent‟s agent caused havoc in the middle of vote
counting at Kabwohe C/U primary school polling station which polling station has the
highest number of registered voters.

22. That at the time of the disruption, I already had 200 votes counted as opposed to the 1st
Respondent who only had 18 votes and the presiding officer was remaining with only 10
votes to count.

23. That to my dismay, after the disruption started, the whole exercise of vote counting
ended and the results of that polling station was not included.

24. That at the end of tallying, the 2nd Respondent declared the 1st Respondent as the duly
elected member of parliament for Manzi County Constituency in Gulu district with 11468
votes followed by myself with 11402 votes (NRM), followed by Odit Bob (independent)
with 1,286 votes and Okot Ronald (independent) with 188 votes.

25. That from the onset, the difference between my votes and those of the 1st Respondent is
only 66 votes which is unjustifiable.

26. That during the process at Kasubi 1 polling station, the 1st Respondent‟s polling agent
one Basude Thomas in connivance with Kitone James the presiding officer on behalf of
the 2nd Respondent poured already ticked votes in the ballot box and the number of
votes in the ballot box do not tally with the number of voters who turned up on the voting
day.

27. That I have brought this application before this Honorable Court without any delays.

28. That whatever I have stated herein above is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and brief.

29. That it is in the interests of justice, fairness and equity that this application is granted.

SWORN at Mbarara this ……………. Day of ………………. 2025

By the said
OTIM JOB

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 28
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

……………………….
DEPONENT

BEFORE ME
……………………………………………
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS

Drawn & Filed By:

M/s Kaswabuli & Co. Advocates
Plot No. 102
Mukwano Road Kampala

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT GULU
ELECTION PETITION NO……….… OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS ACT CAP 177
AND
IN THE MATTER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS HELD ON THE 30TH DAY
OF MAY 2025 IN MANZI COUNTY CONSTITUENCY, GULU DISTRICT

3. OTIM JOB
4. ODIT BOB =================================PETITIONERS

VERSUS

3. OKELLO SAM
4. THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION====================RESPONDENTS

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

The Petitioner shall adduce evidence that the 1st Respondent was not validly elected as
Member of Parliament for Manzi County Constituency and that the election was marred
by illegal practices and irregularities that substantially affected the result.

LIST OF WITNESSES

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 29
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

1. Otim Job (Petitioner)

2. Odit Bob (Independent candidate).
3. Ogola Peter.
4. Any other with leave of court.

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

1. Petitioner‟s affidavit and supporting affidavits.

2. Certified copies of mobile money transaction records showing payments by the
1st Respondent.
3. Certified copy of UNEB letter disowning NCHE equivalence.
4. Voters‟ Register for Manzi Constituency.
5. Copies of Nomination Forms of the 1st Respondent.
6. Copy of Uganda Gazette declaring the 1st Respondent elected.
7. Any other document with leave of court.

LIST OF AUTHORITIES

1. Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.

2. Parliamentary Elections Act, Cap 177.
3. Evidence Act, Cap 8.
4. Any other with leave of court.

DATED at GULU this 18th day of August 2025.

................................................

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

Drawn and filed by;

M/s Kaswabuli & Company Advocates,

Plot No. 102 Mukwano Road,

Kampala, Uganda.

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 30
 Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

What additional information is required in the circumstances?

 The copies of tally sheets

 Declaration of results form

Compiled by Muhumuza Livingston

Note that this in not final research and it is not conclusive per say. You can make further research
because this is to just guide you. Page 31