Court dismisses NRM bid to review ruling on Busiki flag bearer
Justice Collins Acellam dismissed the application with costs to Busiki County Member of Parliament Paul Akamba, holding that the NRM was effectively seeking to appeal against the court's earlier decision rather than asking the court to correct an error apparent on the face of the record.
Court dismisses NRM bid to review ruling on Busiki flag bearer
_________________
The High Court in Kampala has dismissed an application by the National Resistance Movement (NRM) seeking to review a ruling that faulted its Election Disputes Tribunal for re-tallying votes without giving a candidate an opportunity to witness the exercise.
Justice Collins Acellam dismissed the application with costs to Busiki County Member of Parliament Paul Akamba, holding that the NRM was effectively seeking to appeal against the court's earlier decision rather than asking the court to correct an error apparent on the face of the record.
The judge ruled that the NRM had failed to demonstrate any error that would warrant a review of the earlier decision.
The ruling followed an application filed by the NRM under Order 46 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking to review a decision delivered by Justice Acellam on October 17, 2025, in which the court faulted the party's Election Disputes Tribunal for conducting a re-tallying exercise in the absence of Akamba.
The dispute arose from the NRM party primaries for the Busiki Constituency parliamentary flag bearer.
Akamba had challenged the declaration of his rival as the NRM flag bearer, alleging irregularities in the tallying of the results.
The NRM Election Disputes Tribunal subsequently considered the dispute and re-tallied the votes before upholding the declaration of the rival as the party's flag bearer.
Dissatisfied with the process, Akamba petitioned the High Court, challenging the tribunal's decision.
In his earlier ruling, Justice Acellam held that the tribunal should have allowed Akamba to witness the re-tallying exercise, particularly because the dispute centred on the alleged failure to properly tally the election results.
The NRM, through its Director of Legal Services, Enoch Barata, subsequently sought a review of the decision, arguing that the judge had made an error apparent on the face of the record.
The party argued that the tribunal had only verified declaration of results forms and other documents submitted by the parties after they had been given an opportunity to appear before it with their lawyers.
It contended that there was no legal requirement for the parties to be physically present while the tribunal internally evaluated or verified documentary evidence.
The NRM further argued that its Election Disputes Tribunal had powers under the party's Constitution and the NRM Election Regulations, 2025, to verify, tally and review vote counts in internal elections.
However, Akamba opposed the application, arguing that the re-tallying of votes was a physical and mathematical verification process that required transparency and the presence of the affected candidates or their agents.
He argued that the tribunal was fully aware that his complaint was based on alleged improper tallying of results and, therefore, should not have conducted the exercise behind his back.
Akamba further argued that the NRM's application was a disguised appeal aimed at persuading the same court to reconsider its earlier interpretation of procedural impropriety.
In his ruling, Justice Acellam agreed with Akamba's position, holding that the NRM had not demonstrated an error apparent on the face of the record.
Justice Acellam noted that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and should not require an elaborate process of reasoning to establish.
He said where a court has taken a possible view of a matter, the fact that another judge could have reached a different conclusion does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.
The judge also considered Regulation 45 of the NRM Election Regulations, 2025, which provides for the trial of election petitions and allows the tribunal, before reaching a decision, to order a re-tally of votes cast where an election was conducted by ballot.
Justice Acellam said although the regulation did not expressly make the presence of parties during a re-tally compulsory, it also did not bar their presence.
He maintained that, based on the circumstances of the case, it was important for the parties to be present during the re-tallying exercise to ensure a fair hearing and accountability.
The judge said the NRM's argument required the court to reconsider and reverse its earlier decision on a matter on which different judges could legitimately hold divergent views.
He held that such a challenge was more appropriately pursued through an appeal rather than an application for review.
“The Applicant in this matter is not requesting this court to review the decision based on an error apparent on the face of the record but rather the Applicant is requesting this court to reverse a decision made by its discretion on a matter that could have two divergent views by different judges,” Justice Acellam held.
He consequently dismissed the application with costs to Akamba.
The party was represented by Byenkya, Kihika & Co. Advocates, while Akamba was represented by Kagera Advocates.