Uganda: Rubongoya Kabanda Election Petition Affidavits Struck

• Justice Flavia Nabakooza struck 97 affidavits from the Rubongoya Kabanda election petition, citing irregular filing without court leave.
• The court dismissed Rubongoya's complaint about 23 polling stations in restricted areas, ruling it should have been raised with the Electoral Commission before the January 15, 2026 election.
• However, complaints regarding Kabanda's nomination, academic qualifications, and name differences were allowed to proceed, as Rubongoya could not obtain certified documents until after the election.
• The ruling clarifies strict procedural requirements for evidence submission and distinguishes between pre-election and post-election challenges based on the timing of information access.
• This decision provides crucial guidance for legal practitioners on affidavit filing deadlines and the appropriate timing for raising grievances with the Electoral Commission in Uganda.

This Uganda election law affidavit filing deadlines ruling provides critical guidance on the strict procedural requirements governing election petitions.

Justice Flavia Nabakooza recently delivered a significant ruling in the Uganda Rubongoya Kabanda election petition, impacting the challenge against the Kampala Central Division parliamentary seat. The court's decision centered on two key aspects: the admissibility of evidence and the timing of electoral complaints. Specifically, 97 affidavits filed by the petitioner, Rubongoya, were struck from the record due to procedural irregularities, having been introduced months after the initial petition without the necessary court approval.

The ruling also addressed several pre-election disputes raised by Rubongoya following the January 15, 2026 election. While some complaints, such as those concerning the location of 23 polling stations in Nakasero II and Kololo II, were dismissed for not being raised with the Electoral Commission prior to polling day, others were permitted to proceed. Justice Nabakooza allowed Rubongoya's challenges regarding Kabanda's nomination, academic qualifications, and name discrepancies, acknowledging that the petitioner could not have practically addressed these matters before the election. This nuanced judgment arose from consolidated applications filed by the respondent, Kabanda, and the Electoral Commission on October 1, 2026, which sought to remove certain pre-election complaints and expunge the contested affidavits.

The core of the procedural dispute involved the late submission of a substantial body of evidence. Rubongoya had initially filed his election petition on March 30, 2026, accompanied by a single affidavit. However, after Kabanda and the Electoral Commission submitted their responses, Rubongoya introduced dozens of additional affidavits, including a batch of 97 in June and another in August of the same year.

Rubongoya's legal team contended that these supplementary affidavits, which reportedly contained evidence from voters, polling agents, and officials across the constituency, were filed before the scheduling conference. They argued that the statutory 30-day deadline applied only to the initial petition and its accompanying affidavit, not to every subsequent piece of evidence. However, Justice Flavia Nabakooza's election petition ruling found that these 97 affidavits were irregularly introduced into the court record without first obtaining the required leave from the court, leading to their expungement.

A critical aspect of Justice Nabakooza's decision involved clarifying the distinction between pre-election and post-election challenges, particularly concerning the timing for raising complaints with the Electoral Commission Uganda. Rubongoya had raised concerns about 23 polling stations in Nakasero II and Kololo II, alleging they were situated in restricted security areas, which he claimed created an intimidating environment for voters and hindered the monitoring of electoral irregularities.

However, the court determined that this particular complaint should have been lodged with the Electoral Commission before the January 15, 2026 election. Justice Nabakooza noted that the Electoral Commission's voter register, issued on December 15, 2025, had already designated Nakasero II and Kololo II as electoral areas, indicating Rubongoya's awareness of the arrangement. Relying on established Court of Appeal precedents, the judge concluded that challenges to polling station locations must be brought before an election, and thus, this ground was struck from the petition.

Conversely, Rubongoya's complaints regarding Kabanda's nomination, academic qualifications, and discrepancies in her names were allowed to stand. Kabanda had argued these were pre-election disputes that should have been addressed with the Electoral Commission prior to polling. Rubongoya countered that he had attempted to obtain Kabanda's nomination documents before the election but was unsuccessful, only receiving the certified public documents from the Electoral Commission on February 26, 2026, more than a month after the election. Justice Nabakooza concurred, finding that it was neither practical nor legally feasible for Rubongoya to have raised these specific issues as pre-election disputes, given the delayed access to crucial evidence.

This Uganda election law affidavit filing deadlines ruling provides critical guidance on the strict procedural requirements governing election petitions. It underscores the necessity for petitioners to adhere rigorously to timelines and obtain proper court leave for introducing evidence beyond the initial filing. The expunging of 97 affidavits serves as a stark reminder that even substantial evidence can be disregarded if not presented in accordance with established legal procedures.

Furthermore, Justice Nabakooza's decision offers vital clarification on the demarcation between pre-election and post-election disputes. The court's differentiated treatment of the polling station complaint versus the nomination and qualification issues highlights that the timing of a complaint is paramount, especially when information is publicly available or reasonably obtainable before polling day. Legal practitioners involved in Kampala Central Division parliamentary petition cases, and indeed all election petitions, must meticulously assess whether a grievance constitutes a pre-election matter requiring immediate action with the Electoral Commission or a post-election challenge permissible within the petition framework, particularly when access to evidence is a determining factor.

This ruling provides critical guidance on the strict procedural requirements for filing affidavits in Ugandan election petitions and clarifies the distinction between pre-election and post-election challenges, particularly concerning the timing of raising complaints with the Electoral Commission. Lawyers must ensure timely submission of evidence and understand which disputes must be addressed before polling day to avoid having grounds struck from a petition.

Source: Original reporting on the Uganda election petition ruling.