- Full citation: Bwowe Ivan v Electoral Commission and Others (Pre-Election Petition Appeal No. 5 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCD 5 (8 January 2026).
- Court: High Court
- Date: 8th January, 2026
- Judge: Justice Acellam Collins
Brief Facts
The Petitioner (Bwowe Ivan) and the 2nd to 8th Respondents were nominated by the Electoral Commission (1st Respondent) to contest for position of Member of Parliament for Nakawa Division West Constituency. During the nomination exercise, the 2nd to 8th Respondents and their seconders filled out their nomination papers using the name “Nakawa West” instead of the official gazetted name, “Nakawa Division West“.
The Petitioner filed a complaint with the Electoral Commission seeking to nullify these nominations, arguing that “Nakawa West” is a non-existent constituency. The Commission dismissed his complaint, ruling that the “Control Form” signed by all candidates correctly identified the constituency and that the error had been corrected through harmonised campaign programs.
Dissatisfied, the Petitioner appealed to the High Court, seeking a declaration that he was the only validly nominated candidate and should be declared elected unopposed.
Issues
- Whether the 1st Respondent Commission validly upheld the decision of the Returning officer in nominating the 2nd-8th Respondents?
- What Remedies are available?
Summary of the Petitioner’s Arguments
The Petitioner contended that the nominations of the 2nd to 8th Respondents were a nullity ab initio because they were made for a non-existent constituency, arguing that the law requires strict compliance where the Electoral Commission must look only at the “face of the nomination paper” (Form NP) to establish validity.
He argued that the Commission lacked the inherent or residual power to amend or “speak into” nomination forms after the statutory 5:00 PM deadline on nomination day and that it erred by relying on extraneous materials such as posters, harmonization meetings, and the “Control Form” which he claimed are administrative documents rather than statutory requirements under the Parliamentary Elections Act.
Summary of the Respondent’s Arguments
The Respondents argued that the omission of the word “Division” was a mere clerical error or misnomer that did not cause confusion, as “Nakawa West” is the popular and interchangeable name for the officially gazetted “Nakawa Division West”.
They emphasised that the Control Form, which finalized the nomination process and bore a unique electoral area code, was signed by all candidates including the Petitioner under the correct constituency name, thereby curing any prior inadvertence.
They further asserted that the Petitioner was not prejudiced because he had used the same shortened name on his own campaign posters and nomination documents, and they urged the court to prioritise substantive justice under Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution to prevent the disenfranchisement of voters over a minor technicality.
Court’s Holding
Issue 1: Whether the 1st Respondent Commission validly upheld the decision of the Returning officer in nominating the 2nd-8th Respondents?
The court held that the 1st Respondent rightfully upheld the nominations.
Justice Acellam went ahead to find that the failure to include the word “Division” was a minor irregularity or misnomer that could be cured by the Commission under Section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act, Cap. 176 and Section 29(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, Cap. 177.
Relying on Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution, the court emphasised that it must administer substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities. The court also observed that the Petitioner’s own nomination forms also referred to the constituency as “Nakawa West,” yet he did not challenge his own nomination on that basis.
Issue 2: What Remedies are available?
The court found that the Petitioner was not entitled to any of the declarations sought.
Accordingly;
1. The Petition was dismissed in its entirety.
2. The decision of the Electoral Commission upholding the Respondents’ nominations was maintained.
3. The court ordered that each party to bear their own costs.
Judgment delivered on 8th January, 2026 by Justice Acellam Collins.
Read the full judgment on ULII
Download the full case below:
