Court blocks urgent bid to stop local council elections
Justice Joyce Kavuma of the High Court Civil Division dismissed Mukisa’s application for a certificate of urgency, ruling that he had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or credible evidence to warrant the matter being heard during the 2026 court vacation.
Court blocks urgent bid to stop local council elections
_________________
The High Court in Kampala has rejected an application by Mukisa Patrick seeking an urgent hearing of a case in which he wants the court to halt the ongoing electoral process for Local Council I and II leaders and women representatives across the country.
Justice Joyce Kavuma of the High Court Civil Division dismissed Mukisa’s application for a certificate of urgency, ruling that he had failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or credible evidence to warrant the matter being heard during the 2026 court vacation.
Mukisa had filed the application against the Attorney General, the Electoral Commission, President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and the National Resistance Movement (NRM) party.
He was seeking a certificate of urgency to have his earlier application, Miscellaneous Application No. 0603 of 2026, heard during the court vacation.
The application for interim orders arises from a broader case, Miscellaneous Cause No. 0080 of 2026, in which Mukisa is challenging several Government activities and seeking court intervention.
According to court documents, Mukisa wanted the court to issue interim orders delaying the process of electing village and parish women council leaders and the Local Council I and II elections countrywide.
He also wanted court to stop the distribution and allocation of taxpayers’ money to current Members of Parliament in the form of car loans and other arrangements, including activities he claimed could be charged on the Consolidated Fund.
Mukisa further sought an order staying any other activity that might be charged on the Consolidated Fund, which he considered non-mandatory or non-urgent, until his main case was heard and determined.
He argued that the matters were urgent because the activities he wanted stopped were scheduled to take place before the end of July, while his main case was fixed for hearing at the end of August.
He told the court that if the certificate of urgency was granted, his application for interim orders could be heard before the elections proceeded.
He argued that the delay in hearing his application would render his main case nugatory and that the country and its citizens stood to lose if the court did not intervene.
Mukisa also argued that the respondents would not suffer prejudice if the matter was certified urgent, since they had not yet been served and had not filed their responses.
However, Justice Kavuma disagreed with his argument that the matter deserved urgent consideration during the court vacation.
The judge cited Rule 4 of the Judicature (Court Vacation) Rules, which provides that during vacation, the High Court does not ordinarily sit to handle civil matters except those which, in the opinion of the presiding judge, are of an urgent nature.
Justice Kavuma said an applicant seeking a certificate of urgency must demonstrate exceptional circumstances showing that the matter requires the court’s immediate attention.
She said the court was not required to simply accept an applicant’s description of a matter as urgent, but must independently examine the circumstances and determine whether the alleged urgency was genuine.
The judge also relied on a previous decision, Edge Technologies Limited versus KCB Bank Limited, Miscellaneous Application No. 0310 of 2025, which held that urgency should not be self-created by an applicant.
Justice Kavuma observed that Mukisa filed the main case on June 25, 2026, but did not file the application seeking interim orders until July 11.
The application for a certificate of urgency was subsequently filed on July 16.
“The applicant ought to have acted with due haste when knowledge of the respondent’s announcement was gained,” Justice Kavuma said.
She added that if Mukisa considered the matter urgent, he should have approached court immediately after filing the main case or filed the application for interim orders together with the main case.
“An applicant cannot stand back and do nothing and later seek the court’s assistance as a matter of urgency,” the judge held.
Justice Kavuma further found that Mukisa had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the harm he claimed would be suffered by the country and its citizens if the matter was not urgently heard.
The judge also questioned the nature of some of the interim orders sought by Mukisa.
She said the request to stop any activities that might be charged on the Consolidated Fund, unless they were mandatory or urgent, was open to serious doubt because such an order could potentially bring the entire Government machinery to a standstill.
The judge further observed that some of the orders sought had already been overtaken by events, particularly the request concerning the women representatives’ elections, which were scheduled for July 23.
“An application for a certificate of urgency ought not to be granted as a matter of course but it should be granted based on credible evidence that the applicant will suffer harm,” Justice Kavuma said.
She added that where serious doubt was cast on an applicant’s case, the application for a certificate of urgency could not succeed.
The judge consequently found the application devoid of merit and dismissed it.
She made no order as to costs.