High Court Dismisses Parliamentary Election Petition, Holds That Electoral Commission Decisions Sourced from Social Media Cannot Found Valid Petitions and Reaffirms Strict Compliance with the Five-Day
- Waboga David
- Dec 23, 2025
- 5 min read
High Court Dismisses Parliamentary Election Petition, Holds That Electoral Commission Decisions Sourced from Social Media Cannot Found Valid Petitions and Reaffirms Strict Compliance with the Five-Day Filing Deadline
Facts
The Petitioner, Hope Maurishia, was a candidate in the race for Mbarara District Woman Member of Parliament (2026–2031). On 22nd and 23rd October 2025, the Electoral Commission (EC), through the District Returning Officer, nominated both the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent.
Following nomination, the Petitioner requested certified copies of the 1st Respondent’s nomination documents. Upon review, she questioned the authenticity and legal sufficiency of the 1st Respondent’s academic qualifications, particularly two diplomas allegedly equated to the Uganda Advanced Certificate of Education (UACE).
The Petitioner sought verification from the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE), which reportedly indicated that one of the equivalence documents submitted was forged. Despite this, the Electoral Commission dismissed the complaint and upheld the nomination of the 1st Respondent in a decision dated 15th November 2025.
The Petitioner contended that she was never officially notified of the Commission’s decision and only became aware of it through social media on 28th November 2025. She subsequently filed an election petition in the High Court on 3rd December 2025, seeking to annul the nomination of the 1st Respondent.
ISSUES
The primary issues for determination during the Preliminary Objection (P.O.) were:
Whether the petition was competent and whether the Court had jurisdiction to entertain it, given the statutory timelines.
What remedies were available to the parties.
SUBMISSIONS
1st Respondent's Submissions (Preliminary Objection)
The 1st Respondent argued that:
Rule 5(1) of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) (Appeals to the High Court from Commission) Rules SI 141-1 requires petitions to be filed within 5 days of the Electoral Commission's decision
The Electoral Commission's decision was dated 15th November 2025, but the petition was filed on 3rd December 2025—18 days later
The Petitioner failed to apply for extension of time or validation of the late petition
If the Petitioner only learned of the decision on 28th November 2025, the petition is either premature (no official decision received) or filed on an unauthenticated social media source
The petition is incompetent and should be struck out with costs
2nd Respondent's Submissions
The 2nd Respondent fully associated itself with the 1st Respondent's submissions and stated the petition was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process.
Petitioner's Submissions
The Petitioner contended that:
After the hearing on 14th November 2025, parties were advised the decision would be delivered on notice
No notice was ever served by the Electoral Commission
The Petitioner first learned of the decision through social media on 28th November 2025
Upon receiving the decision, she promptly filed the petition within 5 days
The 2nd Respondent failed to deliver the decision to the Petitioner's known address (Kyamanywa Advocates)
A person named Deborah Nshemereirwe allegedly signed for the Petitioner's copy on 28th November 2025 without authorization
The facts are distinguishable from the cases cited by Respondents
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
Petitioner, Ferdinand Musimenta of Kyamanywa and Co Advocates
1st Respondent, Caleb Alaka, Evans Ochiengh, Lawrence Kalamu, Kassim Kamugisha, and Kamuhanda Nelson
2nd Respondent, Enoch Kugonza and Edward Sendyona Mukasa (in-house legal counsel)
COURT'S FINDINGS
On Election Timelines
The Court emphasized the unique nature of election matters and the unforgiving timelines governing them:
"The timelines for filing, hearing and determination of election petitions and their appeals are a question of substantive law (the Constitution and the Elections Act) as opposed to procedural law and are therefore given an added significance."
The Court cited the Kenyan case of Ferdinand Ndung'u Waititu v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission [IEBC] & 8 others [2013] eKLR:
"these timelines set by the Constitution and the Elections Act are neither negotiable nor can they be extended by any court for whatever reason. It is indeed the tyranny of time, if we may call it so."
On Diligence and Vigilance Required
The Court found that the Petitioner and her counsel failed to exercise the required diligence:
"After the hearings at the Commission the Petitioner and her counsel needed to be vigilant in pursuance of an answer/decision to their complaint. counsel should have warned himself of the dangers of any amount of complacency as the timelines are strict and non-negotiable."
The Court referenced Mugema Peter vs. Mudiobole Abedi Nasser (Court of Appeal Election Petition Appeal No. 16 of 2016) and Wameli v Masika (Election Petition Appeal 57 of 2021), emphasizing that parties must actively follow up on decisions rather than wait passively.
On the Use of Social Media-Sourced Decision
The Court rejected reliance on a social media-sourced decision:
"The use of a decision got from social media (WhatsApp) to base her petition was like using the UNEB results sent via an SMS to the students. The result may be right but no institution will admit a student on the basis of those results sent by SMS. The institutions will usually insist on the official result slip issued by the awarding institution."
On Failure to Apply for Extension of Time
The Court noted that while there exists a narrow window for enlargement of time in exceptional circumstances, the Petitioner made no application for such relief:
"In the instant case, there was no effort or attempt to explore or utilize that narrowest window through an application for enlargement of time."
HOLDING
The Court held:
"The merits of the petition notwithstanding, I find that this court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain a petition which was filed out of time without any attempt to apply for extension of time or validation of the petition filed late."
The Petition was DISMISSED for being filed out of time.
Costs:
Each party to bear their own costs, given the public importance of the matter and to avoid stifling the exercise of electoral rights.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Strict Compliance with Electoral Timelines is Mandatory
The 5-day timeline for filing election petitions under Rule 5(1) of SI 141-1 is strict and non-negotiable. These timelines go to the court's temporal jurisdiction and cannot be extended without an application.
Active Diligence Required
Parties in election matters must actively and vigilantly pursue decisions and rulings. Passive waiting or reliance on the opposing party or commission to deliver decisions is insufficient.
Official Sources Only
Reliance on social media or unofficial sources for court decisions is unacceptable. Parties must obtain official copies of decisions from the relevant authority, even if the content is accurate.
Apply for Extension of Time
Where a petition is filed late, even for justifiable reasons, an application for extension of time or validation must be filed. The court will not exercise discretion to enlarge time sua sponte (on its own motion).
No Mercy for Procedural Failures
In election matters, procedural compliance is as important as substantive merit. The court will not entertain the merits if jurisdictional requirements are not met, regardless of how serious the underlying allegations may be.
Counsel's Responsibility
Legal counsel representing parties in election matters must be particularly vigilant about timelines and procedural requirements. The unforgiving nature of election law timelines demands exceptional diligence.
Time Begins from Date of Decision
For purposes of filing appeals/petitions, time runs from the date the decision is delivered/dated, not from when a party becomes aware of it, unless exceptional circumstances are proven through a formal application.
Implication
This ruling reinforces that procedural compliance in election matters is paramount and that parties and their counsel must exercise extraordinary diligence in monitoring and responding to electoral commission decisions within the strict statutory timelines, or risk forfeiting their right to challenge those decisions regardless of merit.
improve this title
Read the full decision below
.jpg)
