HIGH COURT QUASHES NRM ELECTION TRIBUNAL DECISION IN BUSIKI CONSTITUENCY – REINSTATES APPLICANT AS NRM FLAG BEARER
- Waboga David
- Oct 21
- 5 min read
The High Court of Uganda has quashed the National Resistance Movement's (NRM) Election Disputes Tribunal decision upholding controversial Busiki Constituency parliamentary primaries results, reinstating Hon. Akamba Paul as the duly elected NRM flagbearer for the 2026 general elections.
Facts
The Applicant participated in the NRM party primaries for Busiki Constituency Member of Parliament in 2025. On 18th July 2025, the NRM District Registrar declared him the winner and NRM flag bearer. However, the following day, 19th July 2025, the same Registrar rescinded that declaration and instead declared the 2nd Respondent as winner.
On July 18, 2025, the NRM District Registrar (Namutumba District) declared the Applicant the winner, having polled 34,265 votes against the 2nd Respondent's 32,315 votes. This was evidenced by a Declaration of Results Form (Annexure "A") stamped and signed by the Registrar, Mwanja Richard.
On July 19, 2025, the same Registrar issued a second Declaration of Results Form (Annexure "B"), rescinding the Applicant's victory without notice or opportunity to be heard, and declaring the 2nd Respondent the winner with 35,249 votes against the Applicant's 34,269 votes. No explanation was provided for the vote discrepancies or the rescission.
Aggrieved, the Applicant petitioned the NRM Election Disputes Tribunal (Petition No. 406/2025), alongside consolidated petitions from other petitioners (Nos. 425/2025 and 120/2025), challenging the 2nd Respondent's declaration on grounds of irregularities, including altered/falsified results at polling stations (e.g., Ituba A, Matyama, Budongo, Nawambogo B, and Nambote), forged forms, and inclusion of results from non-existent polling stations (e.g., Kangulume Zone A, Isegeto, Nakazounzo).
The Tribunal, on August 19, 2025, dismissed the petitions after conducting a re-tally of results from 249 polling stations without notifying or allowing the Applicant to witness the exercise. It upheld the 2nd Respondent's declaration, finding him the winner by a margin of 98 votes (34,466 for 2nd Respondent vs. 34,356 for Applicant), despite acknowledging the Applicant's evidence of initial declaration (DR Form and video recording) and complaints of irregularities.
The Applicant filed this judicial review application on grounds of illegality (functus officio by Registrar; Tribunal exceeding mandate), irrationality (biased re-tally favoring 2nd Respondent by 833 votes via non-existent stations and ignoring voter register excesses), procedural impropriety (no fair hearing during re-tally), and breach of natural justice. He sought declarations of nullity, certiorari, reinstatement, mandamus for flag issuance, damages, and costs.
The 1st Respondent (NRM) opposed, arguing the application was a disguised election petition/appeal, not amenable to review, and that the Tribunal acted within its mandate under NRM Constitution and Elections Regulations 2025. The 2nd Respondent similarly contended it was merit-based auditing beyond judicial review's scope.
Issues for Determination
Whether the application was amenable to judicial review.
Whether the NRM District Registrar acted illegally and/or procedurally improperly when he rescinded the Applicant’s declaration.
Whether the NRM Election Disputes Tribunal acted with illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety in upholding the Registrar’s decision.
Whether the Applicant was entitled to the remedies sought.
LEGAL REPRESENTATION
Parties’ Submissions
Applicant’s Submissions
The Applicant contended that the NRM District Registrar had no power under the NRM Election Commission Regulations, 2025 to reopen tallying or alter results once declared. Upon declaring a winner, the Registrar became functus officio.
Relying on Hassan Ali Joho & Another v Suleiman Said Shahbal & 2 Others (2014) KLR, Counsel argued that:
“The jurisdiction to handle disputes relating to electoral processes shifts from the Commission to the Judiciary upon execution of the required mandate by the returning officer.”
He further submitted that rescinding his victory without a hearing violated Article 28(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.
Counsel also challenged the Tribunal’s re-tallying of votes in the absence of the Applicant, arguing it breached natural justice and procedural fairness.
1st Respondent’s Submissions
Counsel for NRM denied that the Applicant was ever validly declared winner, arguing that only one authentic Declaration of Results Form (Annexure “B”) existed, signed and stamped by the District Registrar. He contended that the earlier form relied upon by the Applicant (Annexure “A”) lacked authenticity.
He also argued that the decision to rescind results was part of the party’s internal process and therefore not amenable to judicial review.
2nd Respondent’s Submissions
Counsel for the 2nd Respondent maintained that the District Registrar’s decision was properly reviewed by the Tribunal, whose ruling was final within party structures. He insisted that the Applicant’s grievances amounted to an appeal disguised as judicial review, and that all necessary procedural rights had been respected.
Court’s Findings and Reasoning
(a) On Amenability to Judicial Review
The Court held that internal party tribunals that make binding determinations without recourse to any alternative remedy under the law are subject to judicial review under Article 42 of the Constitution.
“I find that the only remedy available to such a person lies in judicial review by the courts... It is therefore the finding of this Court that this Application is amenable to judicial review and is properly before this Court.”
(b) On Illegality of the District Registrar’s Actions
The Court found that the Registrar acted without jurisdiction when he rescinded the Applicant’s declaration after duly declaring results. Once he declared a winner, he became functus officio.
“I find that the NRM District Registrar acted illegally when he rescinded the declaration of the Applicant to declare the 2nd Respondent as NRM Constituency Flag bearer... because he did not have such powers and he was functus officio.”
The Court agreed with the Kenyan Supreme Court precedent of Hassan Ali Joho v. Suleiman Shahbal (2014) KLR that the jurisdiction to alter results ceases once declaration is made.
(c) On Procedural Impropriety
The Court held that the District Registrar violated Article 28(1) by rescinding the Applicant’s victory without notice or a hearing:
“The decision to rescind the Applicant’s victory is one which affects the Applicant’s rights and his majority NRM supporters’ right to choose a leader of their choice... the Registrar violated the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing and thus acted in total abuse of the principles of natural justice.”
(d) On the Tribunal’s Conduct
The Court found that the Tribunal committed procedural impropriety by conducting a re-tally of votes in the absence of the Applicant, contrary to fairness and transparency:
“It was incumbent on the tribunal, when faced with a decision affecting the Applicant’s rights, to ensure a fair trial... By re-tallying in the absence of the Applicant, the tribunal violated his right to a fair hearing.”
The Court cited Barbara Awidi Michelle v Uganda Revenue Authority, Misc. Cause No. 322 of 2021, where Justice Boniface Wamala emphasized that even administrative processes must respect fair hearing rights where a person’s interests are affected.
Holding
The Court quashed and set aside:
The decision of the NRM District Registrar rescinding the Applicant’s declaration as winner.
The subsequent decision of the NRM Election Disputes Tribunal upholding the Registrar’s decision.
The Court declared the Applicant the rightful NRM flag bearer for Busiki Constituency, holding that the Registrar and Tribunal acted illegally, irrationally, and with procedural impropriety.
Key Takeaways
Functus Officio Principle
Once a returning officer or registrar declares results, their mandate ends; they cannot revisit or alter the declaration.
Judicial Review over Party Processes
Internal political party tribunals are subject to judicial review where their decisions affect rights and no other remedy exists.
Any administrative or quasi-judicial decision that affects legal rights must comply with fair hearing standards under Article 28(1).
Retallying or revising electoral results must be done transparently and in the presence of affected parties.
Public Law Principle,
Judicial review scrutinizes the decision-making process, not the merits, ensuring legality, fairness, and rationality in administrative action.
Read the full case below
.jpg)
Comments