Mulirire Daniel filed an appeal against the Electoral Commission’s decision to disqualify him from contesting in the Budiope East parliamentary elections due to alleged non-compliance with nomination requirements.
Appeal Against Electoral Commission Decision
This case involves an appeal by Mulirire Daniel against the Electoral Commission’s decision to disqualify him from contesting in the Budiope East parliamentary elections.
- The appeal is based on Article 64(1) of the Constitution and the Electoral Commission Act, Cap 176.
- The Petitioner seeks reinstatement on the ballot and costs of the Petition.
- The grounds for appeal include alleged errors by the Electoral Commission regarding resignation proof and procedural fairness.
Background of the Case
This section outlines the events leading to the appeal, including the complaint lodged against the Petitioner.
- The Petitioner was nominated on October 22, 2025, but a complaint was filed on November 14, 2025, claiming he was still a serving police officer.
- The complaint was served to the Petitioner on November 23, 2025, and he responded on November 24, 2025.
- The Electoral Commission annulled his nomination on December 23, 2025, citing failure to provide proof of resignation.
The Petitioner was represented by Jude Byamukama Advocates, while the Respondents had their respective legal counsel. The court directed parties to file pleadings, submissions, and authorities for consideration.
Issues for Determination
The court identified several key issues to resolve in the appeal.
- The constitutionality of Section 4(4)(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act in light of previous court rulings.
- Whether the Electoral Commission’s decision complied with Section 8 of the Electoral Commission Act.
- The requirement for proof of resignation from civil service in the nomination process.
- The adequacy of the Petitioner’s resignation proof.
- Whether the Petitioner’s right to a fair hearing was violated.
Court’s Determination Process
The court’s approach to determining the appeal is outlined here.
- The court considered pleadings, affidavits, and submissions from both parties.
- The burden of proof lies with the Petitioner, who must demonstrate the grounds of appeal.
- The court noted that some issues could be resolved without delving into the merits of the case.
Constitutionality of Section 4(4)(a)
This section discusses the legal validity of Section 4(4)(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
- The Petitioner argues it is unconstitutional based on the Kwizera Eddie vs Attorney General ruling.
- The Respondents contend that the section remains valid as it was not nullified by the Supreme Court.
- The court finds that the requirement for resignation is still applicable and valid.
Compliance with Electoral Commission Act
This section addresses whether the Electoral Commission complied with its own regulations.
- The court found that the issue of non-compliance with Section 8 was not raised in the original petition.
- The court emphasized that new grounds cannot be introduced in affidavits in rejoinder.
- Evidence presented showed that the Commission had the requisite quorum during the hearing.
Requirement for Proof of Resignation
This section evaluates the necessity of providing proof of resignation in the nomination process.
- The Petitioner was required to submit proof of resignation as a public officer.
- The court found no evidence that the Petitioner provided such proof at the time of nomination.
- The requirement for resignation is deemed mandatory under the law.
Conclusion and Ruling
The court’s final ruling on the appeal is summarized here.
- The appeal is dismissed based on the findings regarding the validity of the law and compliance with procedures.
- The court emphasizes the importance of adhering to legal requirements for candidacy in elections.
Legal Findings on Petitioner’s Nomination
The court upheld the Electoral Commission’s decision to denominate the Petitioner due to non-compliance with resignation requirements.
- The Petitioner failed to provide evidence of resignation at the time of nomination, violating Section 4 (4) (a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, Cap 177.
- The law mandates that candidates must resign at least 90 days prior to nomination.
- The court referenced previous cases to support the necessity of compliance with legal requirements at each electoral process stage.
Evidence of Resignation and Its Validity
The court determined that the letter submitted by the Petitioner did not constitute adequate proof of resignation.
- The resignation letter was unsigned and lacked certification, raising questions about its authenticity.
- The Petitioner did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that he had effectively resigned from the Uganda Police Force.
- The court emphasized the importance of presenting cogent evidence during the complaint hearing.
Fair Hearing Rights of the Petitioner
The court found that the Petitioner was afforded a fair hearing despite claims of an ex-parte decision.
- The Petitioner was notified of the complaint and given an opportunity to respond, which he did on 24th November 2025.
- The Commission considered the Petitioner’s response before making its decision, indicating that he was not denied a fair hearing.
- The court noted that the Commission has discretion in regulating its procedures while ensuring fairness.
Court’s Ruling on Costs and Professional Conduct
The court ruled that each party would bear its own costs due to the novel legal issues raised.
- The court clarified the applicability of Section 4 (4) (a) regarding resignation evidence at nomination.
- The ruling cautioned legal practitioners against discussing ongoing cases in public forums, emphasizing the need for professional decorum.
- The decision was delivered electronically on 9th January 2026.