Uganda High Court Expunges Defective Affidavit, Dismisses Election Petition

On November 13, 2026, the High Court of Uganda, in Asigario Turyagyenda v Kwizera Eddie Wa-Gahungu and Another (Election Petition 1 of 2026), expunged late and defective affidavit evidence presented by the petitioner, subsequently finding that the petitioner failed to prove allegations of bribery, undue influence, or obstruction.

This ruling serves as a stark reminder of the critical importance of strict adherence to procedural rules, particularly concerning the timely and proper submission of evidence in election petitions in Uganda. The expungement of evidence due to procedural defects can be fatal to a case, irrespective of the merits of the underlying allegations. It reinforces the judiciary's commitment to maintaining procedural integrity in electoral disputes, which are often time-sensitive and highly contentious, thereby ensuring fairness and predictability in the litigation process.

Election petitions in Uganda are governed by specific procedural rules outlined in the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Election Petitions Rules, which dictate strict timelines for filing petitions, serving respondents, and submitting evidence, including affidavits. The High Court, in its role as the primary adjudicator of these petitions, strictly enforces these rules to ensure fairness and efficiency. The expungement of evidence is a severe consequence of non-compliance, often leading to the collapse of a petitioner's case, as seen here. The grounds for challenging an election, such as bribery, undue influence, or obstruction, require robust and admissible evidence to be proven on a balance of probabilities. The key parties involved were the High Court of Uganda, Asigario Turyagyenda as the petitioner, and Kwizera Eddie Wa-Gahungu and another party (likely the Electoral Commission or the declared winner) as the respondents.

Attorneys handling election petitions in Uganda must exercise extreme diligence in managing timelines and ensuring the procedural correctness of all submitted documents, especially affidavit evidence. This includes meticulous attention to filing deadlines, proper commissioning, and adherence to all formal requirements for affidavits. Failure to do so, as demonstrated by this case, can result in the expungement of crucial evidence, effectively undermining the entire petition, regardless of the strength of the substantive claims of electoral malpractice. Practitioners should prioritize procedural compliance as much as substantive legal arguments, as procedural missteps can be insurmountable.