Uganda High Court: Election Discrepancies Not Proven to Affect Outcome

In Uganda, the High Court, in the case of Kapalaya Donna Kamuli v Bebona Josephine Babungi and Electoral Commission (Election Petition 2 of 2026) [2026] UGHC 1382 (9 November 2026), found that admitted tally discrepancies were insufficiently proven to have a substantial effect on the election outcome or to establish electoral offences attributable to the returned candidate.

This ruling from the High Court of Uganda is highly significant for electoral jurisprudence, particularly regarding the burden of proof in election petitions challenging results based on alleged irregularities. It reinforces the principle that while discrepancies may exist, petitioners must demonstrate not only their occurrence but also their *substantial effect* on the final outcome to warrant overturning an election. Furthermore, it clarifies the high threshold required to attribute electoral offences directly to a returned candidate, emphasizing the need for direct and compelling evidence.

Election petitions in Uganda are primarily governed by the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Presidential Elections Act, which set out the grounds for challenging election results and the procedural requirements. The High Court of Uganda has original jurisdiction to hear parliamentary election petitions. The standard of proof in such cases often requires the petitioner to prove that the non-compliance with electoral laws or the irregularities affected the result of the election in a substantial manner. This case highlights the application of this "substantial effect" test, which is a cornerstone of electoral law in many common law jurisdictions, including Uganda. The hierarchy of courts means that High Court decisions, while persuasive, can be appealed to the Court of Appeal and ultimately the Supreme Court.

The key parties involved in this matter were the petitioner, Kapalaya Donna Kamuli; the first respondent, Bebona Josephine Babungi, who was the returned candidate; and the second respondent, the Electoral Commission. The High Court of Uganda was the judicial body that rendered this decision, providing an interpretation of the evidentiary requirements in electoral disputes.

Attorneys involved in electoral litigation in Uganda must understand that merely identifying irregularities or discrepancies is often insufficient to succeed in an election petition. The critical element is proving that these issues had a *substantial effect* on the election results, meaning they demonstrably altered the outcome. Furthermore, establishing electoral offences against a candidate requires robust evidence directly linking the candidate to the alleged misconduct, rather than relying on general irregularities. This decision underscores the importance of meticulous evidence gathering and strategic pleading to meet the high evidentiary bar set by the courts in election disputes.