KAMPALA, Uganda (UGNEWSLINE) – The High Court in Kampala has rejected a petition seeking to overturn the election of five Workers’ Representatives to Parliament, ruling that petitioner Michael Kamba Bhamusangala failed to meet key legal requirements for bringing the case.
Justice Allan Paul Nshimye dismissed the petition challenging election of Nakku Fiona, Birungi Annet, Rwabushaija Namubiru Margret, Arinaitwe Rwakajara and Agaba Gilbert as members of the 2026–2031 Parliament.
Bhamusangala was ordered to pay the respondents’ legal costs.
The petitioner had questioned the credibility of the election, alleging breaches of electoral laws and arguing that the absence of a national voters’ register for workers undermined the process.
He further challenged the Electoral Commission’s acceptance of nomination documents for 26 candidates, contending that the nominations should not have been validated without the register.
However, the case encountered legal hurdles after lawyers for the respondents, including Jude Byamukama and Derrick Bazekuketta, challenged the manner in which the petition had been filed and served.
According to the lawyers WhatsApp messages were insufficient to prove service.
In his ruling, Justice Nshimye found that Bhamusangala had not properly served several respondents as required by the Parliamentary Elections Act.
The law requires petitioners to deliver notice of an election petition, together with a copy of the petition, within seven days of filing. Personal service is required unless the court authorises an alternative method.
The judge found that Nakku had not been served and that the petitioner had not sought permission to use an alternative method. The petition against her was therefore dismissed.
For Birungi, Rwabushaija Namubiru and Arinaitwe, the petitioner relied on WhatsApp messages. But the evidence presented did not establish that the recipients had read the documents or that the telephone numbers belonged to the intended respondents.
The court ruled that the evidence was insufficient to prove effective service on the three officials.
Justice Nshimye acknowledged that electronic service can be accepted in appropriate cases but said there must be evidence showing that the recipient became aware of the proceedings.
The court, however, rejected the service objections relating to Agaba and the Electoral Commission, finding that both had been properly served.
Some complaints belonged before the Electoral Commission
The judge also examined whether the High Court was the proper forum for all the complaints raised.
He explained that the Electoral Commission handles complaints arising before and during polling, while the High Court has authority to hear petitions challenging declared parliamentary election results under the relevant provisions of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
Several of Bhamusangala’s complaints concerned candidate nominations and other issues arising before the election. The judge found that such matters should ordinarily have been raised with the Electoral Commission.
Of the 18 grounds presented, only grounds two and three, concerning alleged breaches of electoral laws, were potentially suitable for consideration by the High Court, subject to supporting evidence.
The court accordingly upheld part of the objection to its jurisdiction.
Failure to establish standing proves decisive
The court also found that Bhamusangala had not demonstrated that he was legally entitled to challenge the election.
Under Section 79(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, a petition challenging a parliamentary election may be brought by an unsuccessful candidate or a registered voter in the relevant constituency who meets the statutory requirement of support from at least 500 registered voters.
Although Bhamusangala described himself as a self-employed worker and an advocate for workers’ rights, he did not establish that he had contested the election. Neither did he provide the required voter signatures.
Justice Nshimye held that this failure meant the petitioner had not established locus standi — the legal right to bring a case before court.
The judge stressed that legal standing must be established before a court can proceed to examine the substance of a dispute. He also criticised the petitioner for initiating the case without satisfying the applicable legal requirements, noting his earlier involvement in proceedings concerning the workers’ national voters’ register.
