Case in focus, Kisembo James v Electoral Commission & Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 17 of 2025)
Brief Facts
The Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent were both nominated for the position of Member of Parliament for Bugangaizi West Constituency. Following the nominations, the 2nd Respondent filed a complaint with the Electoral Commission (1st Respondent), alleging that the Petitioner failed to obtain the required signatures of 10 registered voters from the constituency. On 18th December 2025, the Electoral Commission issued a decision invalidating and quashing the Petitioner’s nomination for non-compliance with the Parliamentary Elections Act, Cap. 177. Aggrieved by this decision, the Petitioner filed the present appeal to the High Court.
Grounds of Appeal
The Petitioner raised five grounds of appeal.
- The First Respondent erred in law and fact when it entertained the Second
Respondent’s complaint which alleged that the Petitioner had fraudulently obtained
names of the supporters and their signatures on Electoral Commission Form NP. - The First Respondent erred in law and fact when it entertained the Second
Respondent’s Petition which alleged that the Petitioner’s Electoral Commission
Form NP was a forgery. - The First Respondent erred in law and fact when it held that Ntorene Nicholas and
Katurebe Nassan did not sign on the Petitioner’s nomination form. - The First Respondent erred in law and fact when it relied on Ntorene Nicholas’s
statutory declaration in support of the complaint which was drawn contrary to the
law. - The First Respondent erred in law and fact when it held that the Petitioner had in
his own admission admitted that the attendant signatures were collected by his
official agent on his behalf.
Preliminary Objection
The 1st Respondent (Electoral Commission) raised a preliminary objection on a point of law, asserting that the petition violated Rule 5(1) of the Parliamentary Elections (Appeals to the High Court from Commission) Rules S.I. 141-1 which provides that appeals against the decision of the EC must be filed within 5 days of passing the decision.
The basis for this objection was that the Electoral Commission’s decision was delivered on 18th December 2025, but the Petitioner did not file the appeal until 24th December 2025. This resulted in the petition being filed six days after the decision, exceeding the mandatory five-day limit prescribed by the rules.
Petitioner’s Response to the Preliminary Objection
In response to the objection, the Petitioner argued that he “got to know” about the decision only on the 23rd day of December 2025. He contended that he acted with immediate speed by filing the petition on 24th December, just one day after being notified of the 1st Respondent’s decision.
Holding
The Court did not rule on the merits of the individual grounds of appeal.
Instead, it upheld the 1st Respondent’s objection regarding the timeline of the filing. Court held that the petition was incompetent and time-barred because it was filed six days after the Electoral Commission’s decision, while Rule 5(1) of the Parliamentary Elections (Appeals to the High Court from Commission) Rules mandates filing within five days. Thus, the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Judgment delivered on 8th January 2026 by Justice Bonny Isaac Teko.
Key Principles
The decision lays down the following key principles.
1. Jurisdictional Requirement
The Court held that compliance with mandatory statutory timelines is what confers jurisdiction upon the Court. Non-compliance denies the Court the legal power to entertain the petition. (See pages 5 & 7).
2. Mandatory Nature of Election Petition Timelines
Citing the case of Electoral Commission and Anor Vs Hon. Lanyero Molly (22 of 2022; 33 of 2022; 44 of 2022; Consolidated Election Petition) [2022] UGCA 336, Justice Teko, emphasised that election laws and their procedural frameworks are “cast in stone” and “unforgiving” because the democratic mandate of leaders must be ascertained promptly. (See page 5)
3. Duty of a Petitioner to Stay Alert in Regards to the Electoral Commission’s Decisions
The Court ruled that parties to a complaint have a duty to keep a “daily watch” at the doorsteps of the Electoral Commission to act immediately upon a decision. (See page 6).
4. Inexcusable Delay
The one-day delay was deemed inexcusable, particularly because the Electronic Court Case Management System (ECCMIS) allows for filing up to 11:59 PM, providing extra hours that the Petitioner failed to utilize. (See page 7).
Reliefs
Parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
Conclusion
While courts possess discretion to extend time under section 96 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282, election petitions and electoral appeal timelines remain strict and mandatory. Non-compliance with these timelines, even by a single day, deprives the court of jurisdiction and is fatal to a party’s case.
I hope you found this case brief helpful.
Download the full case below:
