Kampala, Uganda | URN | In the months after the January 2026 general elections, defeated candidates flooded the High Court with petitions alleging irregularities, violence, ballot stuffing and altered results.
Some of these challenges have collapsed before judges ever examined the substance.
Petitions and supporting affidavits have been struck out for arriving outside the rigid statutory windows, leaving many cases severely crippled.
The pattern has sparked sharp debate. Are lawyers simply incompetent? Did petitioners panic and scramble evidence after the clocks started ticking? Or do the tight deadlines themselves create an uneven playing field that insulates winners?
Review of the rulings on the petitions and interviews with lawyers and academics point to a mix of pressure, cost, emotional intensity and strict procedure rather than any coordinated plot.
Section 79(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act requires a parliamentary petition to be filed within 30 days of the results being published in the Uganda Gazette. Local government and mayoral races usually allow only 14 days.
Rule 4(8) of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) (Election Petitions) Rules demand that the petition be accompanied by an affidavit setting out the facts and a list of documents the petitioner intends to rely on.
Courts treat these timelines religiously. Once they expire, judges have no power to extend or salvage a late filing, even when the allegations appear grave.
Attorney General Kiwanuka reminded judges ahead of the 2026 cycle that the deadlines are “mandatory and non-extential”
Cases whose merits were never established
On 13 October 2026, Justice Flavia Nabakooza Kalungi of the High Court in Kampala struck out a petition filed by NUP’s former candidate for Kampala Central division mayor Moses Katabu challenging NRM incumbent Salim Saad Uhuru’s victory. The Electoral Commission gazetted the results on 15 May 2026, giving Katabu until 29 May. He filed on 30 May at 12:21 p.m. This means he was hours late.
“An election petition filed even one day beyond the prescribed fourteen-day period is time-barred,” Justice Nabakooza ruled. The court lacks jurisdiction to extend or salvage it. She cited the Supreme Court decision in Kyagulanyi v Museveni & Others, stressing that inherent powers cannot override statutory limits. The petition was dismissed without consideration of its merits; each party bore its own costs.
In the Kampala Central parliamentary contest, NUP Secretary General David Lewis Rubongoya, himself a lawyer, filed his petition on 30 March 2026 challenging Minister Minsa Kabanda’s win. He later filed 97 affidavits on 17 June 2026 and one more on 21 August, containing evidence gathered from agents, voters and polling officials across the constituency.
Kabanda and the Electoral Commission applied to expunge the affidavits, arguing that they were irregular, prejudicial and introduced new issues after answers had already been filed and served.
Rubongoya’s lawyers countered that the documents contained only evidence and introduced no new grounds or reliefs and that collecting material from an entire urban constituency made simultaneous filing impractical.
They further argued that affidavits filed before the scheduling conference do not require leave and that “the filing closes only when the matter is called for scheduling.” Justice Nabakooza rejected the arguments.
The petition had been accompanied by affidavits dated 30 March 2026; the later filings could not be said to have “accompanied” it as required by Rule 4(8). She held that affidavits filed after the petition are supplementary and require leave of court.
“I accordingly hold that the said affidavits were irregularly filed, are barred in law, and must be expunged from the court record.” The petition was ordered to proceed only on the pleadings filed on 30 March 2026.
In Busiro South, former MP and NUP candidate Charles Matovu sought electoral materials and validation of results from dozens of polling stations. Justice Jameson Karemani of the High Court in Entebbe dismissed the application. Among other findings, the judge noted that the request had been filed out of time and without leave.
“I do find that filing of an application after five months and specifically on a day before the matter came up for scheduling exhibits an act of panic and not a genuine cause. Electoral causes are urgent in nature and failure to take action for five months amounts to an inordinate delay that should not be promoted,” he ruled.
However, not every election petition falters at the initial filing stage. In the Kira Municipality parliamentary election petition, NRM candidate Daniel Kananura blamed his former lawyers for rushing to file the case and omitting crucial evidence he believed would have strengthened his claim.
After engaging a new law firm, Kananura sought to revive the challenge by filing an amended petition.
His new lawyers also attempted to fill gaps in the case through cross-examination, but the effort failed.
Presiding judge George Okello observed several attempts by Kananura’s lawyers to use cross-examination to address weaknesses in their case.
Lawyers representing respondent George Musisi argued that the amended petition had been filed out of time and introduced new grounds, making the changes legally improper.
They maintained that election petitions are subject to strict rules on amendments and that introducing new grounds would alter the original case.
The court agreed, dismissed the supplementary petition with costs and left Kananura to proceed on the original petition, which Justice Okello later described as badly prepared. The petition was eventually withdrawn.
Some legal teams have navigated the rules more successfully. In Najja Nasifu v Ian Kyeyune, despite ongoing challenges by Electoral Commission lawyers to certain affidavits filed out of time, counsel to the petioner (Najja) sought and obtained court leave during proceedings to introduce additional affidavits.
The difference, practitioners note, often lies in early planning and timely applications for leave rather than bulk filings after respondents have already answered. Najja lost the Wakiso district chairman election to Kyeyune.
Pressure, costs and the emotional charge of defeat
Lawyer and politician Yusuf Nsibambi argues that the problem is structural rather than simple incompetence.
“It’s very difficult for you to fight within time,” he says. “The people who drafted the law wanted to have a serious trial and proper representation by members of parliament or leaders. That was the spirit of the law; to ensure legitimate leaders handle matters of citizens.” Nsibambi who until May the year was the MP for Mawokota South said.
“You have all the allegations, but you don’t have the resources and the time. You want the declaration forms and tally sheets from the Electoral Commission. It is not obliging… At times they deny. You must have records.”
Nsibambi notes that even the state-facilitated courts sometimes struggle to meet their own timelines, while candidates must mobilise money, witnesses and documents across constituencies. He gives an example of how the court has delayed the electoral hearings.
“I think the burden should be on the state to ensure proper governance. They must facilitate candidates. That’s why we find some courts are now saying each party to bear its own costs. It means the losing party was innocent… So basically it’s not the lawyers.”
He is critical of rigid application of the rules: “It is wrong for the courts to be dismissing cases on technicalities because the Constitution is very clear… that justice must be dispensed without undue regard to technicalities.”
Professor Christopher Mbazira, Dean School of Law at Makerere University, agrees that lawyers know the timelines but face intense practical and emotional pressures.
“They come in an environment which is emotionally charged. You are an advocate, you have a lot of evidence to collect, the emotions are high, there’s a candidate. Your client is putting you under pressure, the supporters are chanting.
So it’s very easy to make this mistake and proceed to court without doing adequate preparation.”
Mbaziira argues that collecting evidence is both tedious and expensive.
“Ideally, if you are going to successfully pursue an election petition, you should start collecting those evidence as soon as you come from the nomination… But of course, usually people can’t do that because they can’t afford it… After nomination, you should now have a team of lawyers following you. And how much you have to pay for that.”
On late affidavits, Mbazira points to the formal closing of pleadings.
“If you are going to reopen the pleading, then you need permission of course, and of course the other party will contest it.”
Everyone, he observes, operates under pressure: “The parties are pressured. The supporters are pressured. The judges are pressured. The lawyers are pressured.”
Across the rulings given on the matter, Judges acknowledge the public importance of election petitions and the Supreme Court’s call in Kizza Besigye v Yoweri Museveni Kaguta & Anor (2001) for a liberal approach to affidavits so that petitions are not defeated on pure technicalities.
That liberality, however, stops short of ignoring statutory filing windows or allowing bulk evidence after respondents have already prepared their answers. Late unrestricted filings, courts say, amount to ambush and undermine the expedition required in electoral disputes.
Petitioners and their advocates argue that gathering credible evidence from scattered polling stations takes time and that practical realities of large constituencies make simultaneous filing of every affidavit impossible.
Strict enforcement, they say, elevates form over substance and denies voters a full hearing on alleged malpractice.
Respondents and the courts counter that the law is deliberately strict to ensure finality and prevent endless litigation that destabilises governance.
The high attrition rate appears driven less by conspiracy than by a combination of short non-extendable deadlines, the high cost of evidence-gathering, emotional pressure after defeat, and uneven preparation among legal teams.
Some candidates file skeletal petitions to beat the clock and then scramble for supporting material which is a high-risk strategy the courts are refusing to accept.
As more 2026 petitions move through scheduling and hearing, the courts’ message remains consistent: electoral justice is available, but only to those who respect both the clock and the procedural rules.
For many losing candidates, the first and often fatal battle is not what happened at the polling stations, but what happened, or failed to happen , in the court registry within the statutory window.
The post Why Ugandan courts are dismissing election petitions without hearing their merits appeared first on The Independent Uganda:.