Merely holding a political or organizational position does not automatically confer standing to challenge an election. High Court Rules
- Waboga David
- 6 days ago
- 6 min read
Background and Facts
Osaka Nicholas Epaja, claiming to be the Chairperson NRM League, District Older Persons - Pallisa District, brought this application challenging elections for older persons' executive committees in Pallisa District.
The Electoral Commission had published a roadmap for Special Interest Groups (SIGs) elections on 23rd May 2025.
The respondent conducted older persons' executive committee elections at sub-county level on 14th July 2025 and subsequently at district level on 8th August 2025. The applicant alleged that elections in several sub-counties (Kamuge Town Council, Kamuge Sub County, Kibale Sub County, Puti-Puti Sub County, Boliso I Sub County, Akisim Sub County, Kasodo Sub County, and Olok Sub County) were conducted illegally because only men were elected to the committees without any women representation.
The applicant raised these concerns with the Electoral Commission staff at Pallisa and later petitioned the Electoral Commission Chairperson in Kampala, but claimed his complaints were ignored. The Electoral Commission proceeded with district-level elections, allowing the allegedly illegally constituted sub-county committees to participate.
ISSUES
The court identified the following key issues:
Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application
Whether the applicant ought to have filed an appeal instead of commencing the matter as a court of first instance
Whether the applicant had locus standi (legal standing) to bring the application
Whether the application was properly constituted or was a disguised election petition
SUBMISSIONS
Applicant's Submissions
The Applicant argued that the elections were conducted in blatant violation of the National Council for Older Persons Act, which mandates gender inclusiveness. He maintained that the illegality at sub-county level tainted the subsequent district elections and rendered the entire process null and void. The Applicant further contended that it was in the interest of justice for the Court to intervene and order fresh elections conducted in compliance with the law.
Respondent’s Submissions
The Electoral Commission raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the application was incompetent and that the Court lacked jurisdiction. Counsel submitted that under Section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act and Articles 61(1)(f) and 64 of the Constitution, election-related complaints must first be handled by the Commission, with the High Court only exercising appellate jurisdiction.
The Respondent relied on Charles Nsubuga v Eng. Badru Kiggundu & 3 Others (HCMC No. 148 of 2015) to support the doctrine that statutory dispute-resolution mechanisms must be exhausted before court intervention.
Legal Representation
Applicant: M/s Nangulu & Mugoda Advocates
Respondent: Electoral Commission Legal Department
COURT’S FINDINGS
(a) Jurisdiction and the Scope of the Electoral Commission’s Powers
The Court observed that Article 61(1)(f) of the Constitution empowers the Electoral Commission to hear and determine election complaints arising before and during polling. In tandem, Article 64(1) of the Constitution grants a right of appeal to the High Court for any person aggrieved by a decision of the Electoral Commission made within that mandate. These constitutional provisions are operationalized by Section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act, Cap 176, which authorizes the Commission to examine and decide complaints alleging electoral irregularities.
The Court emphasized that these provisions must be read harmoniously, and relied on the authoritative interpretation of the Court of Appeal in Grace Nalubega v Juliet K. Suubi Kinyamatama & Another (Election Petition Appeal No. 27 of 2021), where it was held that:
“Reading section 15(1) together with Article 61(1)(f) of the Constitution, it becomes apparent that reference in the statutory provision to the Commission's dispute resolution function ‘at any stage’ of the electoral process is subject to the delimitations in the constitutional provision that restrict the Commission's intervention to the stage before and during polling.”
Applying this principle, the Court found that the Electoral Commission’s jurisdiction to resolve election complaints does not extend beyond polling, and any attempt to entertain post-election complaints falls outside its constitutional mandate.
(b) Validity of the Electoral Commission’s Decision
Turning to the facts of the case, the Court noted that the impugned district elections were conducted on 8th August 2025. By the time the Applicant lodged his complaint, the elections had already been concluded. Consequently, the Electoral Commission lacked the jurisdiction to hear or determine the complaint, even though some allegations related to earlier stages such as nominations.
The Court categorically stated:
“This being the case, the Electoral Commission had no mandate to hear or determine the said complaint by the applicant even where some allegations in the complaint related to nominations of some candidates.”
Justice Kavuma held that the Electoral Commission’s purported handling of the complaint was therefore ultra vires, irregular, and legally inconsequential. As such, the Court rejected the argument that the Applicant ought to have appealed against the Commission’s position, observing that:
“The impugned decision made by the Electoral Commission was made without jurisdiction and cannot be regarded as a decision at all.”
Accordingly, there was no valid decision capable of being appealed against under Article 64 of the Constitution.
(c) Nature and Competence of the Application
The Court proceeded to examine the substance of the proceedings as filed. It found that although framed as a miscellaneous application brought under various constitutional, statutory, and procedural provisions, the reliefs sought clearly challenged the validity and outcome of an election.
Justice Kavuma observed:
“It appears to this Court that the instant application is a disguised petition challenging the outcome of an election.”
The Court held that none of the provisions relied upon, including Articles 32 and 33 of the Constitution, the National Council for Older Persons Act, the Civil Procedure Act, or the Judicature Act, conferred jurisdiction upon the Court to entertain an election challenge in that form. The proper procedure would have been to file a formal election petition in accordance with the applicable electoral laws.
(d) Locus Standi (Legal Standing)
A critical finding of the Court related to the Applicant’s failure to establish locus standi, which the Court underscored as a jurisdictional issue. While the Applicant asserted that he was the Chairperson of the NRM League for Older Persons in Pallisa District, the Court found that he did not demonstrate whether he was a contestant, voter, or otherwise legally entitled to challenge the elections in question.
The Court relied on Nabadda Ritah v Nantaba Idah Erios (Election Petition Appeal No. 22 of 2021) and Chen JianWen & Others v Bang Cheng Investment Company Limited & 3 Others (Miscellaneous Application No. 530 of 2023), which articulate the test for locus standi. These authorities establish that a party must demonstrate a sufficient interest, characterized by:
an adequate and substantive interest, not merely a technical one;
an interest that is not remote;
an interest that is actual rather than abstract or academic; and
an interest that is current, not hypothetical.
The Court quoted with approval from Chen JianWen, stating:
“The requirement of sufficient interest is an important safe-guard to prevent having ‘busy-bodies’ in litigation, with misguided or trivial complaints.”
Justice Kavuma firmly held that:
“Being the Chairperson NRM League District Older Persons Pallisa District does not itself confer legal capacity to challenge an election in which he did not contest or participate.”
Reinforcing the jurisdictional consequences of lack of standing, the Court cited Nabadda Ritah v Nantaba (supra), where the Court of Appeal held:
“Where a petitioner or applicant is held to lack locus standi, that finding goes to the jurisdiction of Court and the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter at all.”
(e) Overall Conclusion on Jurisdiction
In light of the above findings, the Court concluded that the application was incompetent on multiple fronts: it was brought in the wrong form, challenged an election outcome without a proper petition, and was instituted by a party who lacked locus standi. These defects deprived the Court of jurisdiction, rendering it incapable of granting any substantive relief.
HOLDING
The court dismissed the application with the following determinations:
The court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application disguised as a petition
The applicant lacked locus standi to institute the application
The application was incompetent as it should have been brought as an election petition
The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Limited Electoral Commission Jurisdiction
The Electoral Commission's mandate to handle election complaints extends only to the period before and during polling, not after elections have concluded.
Decisions Made Without Jurisdiction
When the Electoral Commission makes decisions outside its jurisdiction, such decisions are null and void, and there is no requirement to appeal against them.
Proper Procedure for Challenging Elections
Challenges to the outcome of elections must be brought by way of election petition, not through miscellaneous applications, regardless of the legal provisions cited.
Strict Locus Standi Requirements
To challenge an election, an applicant must demonstrate sufficient legal interest - either as a contestant or voter. Holding a political party position does not automatically confer standing to challenge elections in which one did not participate.
Locus Standi as Jurisdictional Issue
Lack of locus standi goes to the jurisdiction of the court. Where standing is not established, the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter or consider evidence.
Gender Compliance in Older Persons' Committees
While the court did not substantively address the merits, the case highlights the requirement under the National Council for Older Persons Act that at least one-third of executive committees must be older women - a matter that may require proper challenge through appropriate legal channels by persons with standing.
Importance of Proper Legal Remedies
Litigants must pursue the correct legal procedure and statutory remedies. Filing under wrong provisions or in the wrong manner will result in dismissal regardless of the merits of the underlying complaint.
Read the full case
.jpg)
