KAMPALA – 08 January 2026: The High Court of Uganda has dismissed a pre-election petition appeal filed against the Leader of the Opposition (LoP), Joel Ssenyonyi, and seven other respondents, including the Electoral Commission.
The ruling, delivered on January 8, 2026, by Hon. Justice Collins Acellam, puts an end to a legal challenge that sought to nullify the nominations of several candidates for the Nakawa Division West parliamentary seat.
The Core of the Dispute
The petitioner, Bwowe Ivan, challenged the nomination of Joel Ssenyonyi and six other respondents on a technicality. He argued that the candidates had incorrectly filled out their nomination papers by listing the constituency name as “Nakawa West” instead of the official designation, “Nakawa Division West.”
Ivan contended that because the respondents used a “non-existent” constituency name, their nominations were invalid and should be set aside.
The Court’s Reasoning
In his judgment, Justice Acellam rejected the petitioner’s arguments, characterizing the naming discrepancy as a “minor irregularity” or a clerical error rather than a fatal legal flaw.
Key points from the ruling include:
Substance Over Form: The judge emphasized that substantive justice must outweigh procedural technicalities. He noted that the Electoral Commission has the power to cure such minor misnomers.
No Confusion: The court found that “Nakawa West” and “Nakawa Division West” are used interchangeably and that no one, including the petitioner, was genuinely confused about which constituency was being referred to.
The “Clean Hands” Observation: Interestingly, the judge pointed out that the petitioner himself had used the term “Nakawa West” in his own electronic filing, undermining his argument that the name was non-existent.
Protecting the Will of the People: Justice Acellam described the petition as an “audacious attempt” to circumvent the democratic process. He ruled that allowing such an appeal would deny voters their right to choose their representative through the ballot box.
”Elective democracy requires that anyone seeking political office subjects himself/herself to the will of the electorate… this court cannot be seen to subvert the will of the people.” — Justice Collins Acellam
Final Verdict
The court upheld the Electoral Commission’s original decision to maintain the nominations. The petition was dismissed in its entirety, and the court ordered that each party meet its own legal costs.
This ruling clears the way for the respondents, including LoP Joel Ssenyonyi, to proceed with their electoral bids without the shadow of this specific legal challenge.
