Court expunges 97 affidavits in Rubongoya’s election petition against Kabanda
Justice Flavia Nabakooza ruled that the affidavits, which were filed after Kabanda and the Electoral Commission had filed their responses to the petition, were irregularly filed without leave of court.
Kampala Central Division MP Minsa Kabanda (left) and National Unity Platform secretary general David Lewis Rubongoya. (File)
_________________
The High Court in Kampala has struck out and expunged 97 affidavits filed by National Unity Platform secretary general David Lewis Rubongoya in his election petition challenging the election of Kampala Central Division MP Minsa Kabanda.
Justice Flavia Nabakooza ruled that the affidavits, which were filed after Kabanda and the Electoral Commission had filed their responses to the petition, were irregularly filed without leave of court.
The affidavits were filed on June 16 and August 21, 2026, in support of the petition.
“I accordingly hold that the said affidavits were irregularly filed, are bad in law, and must be expunged from the court record,” Justice Nabakooza ruled.
The judge also ordered that the pleadings in Election Petition Number 10 of 2026 be closed and the petition proceeds to a scheduling conference.
The ruling followed two applications filed by Kabanda and the Electoral Commission seeking, among other orders, the striking out of the 97 affidavits and complaints relating to Kabanda’s nomination, academic qualifications, differences in names and the location of polling stations in restricted areas.
The applications were consolidated on October 1, 2026.
Rubongoya filed the election petition on March 30, 2026, challenging Kabanda’s election as Kampala Central Division MP following the January 15, 2026, parliamentary elections.
Kabanda and the Electoral Commission filed their response on April 10, 2026.
His lawyers also relied on a Court of Appeal decision in Julius Tamale Konde versus Isaac Ssenkubuge and the Electoral Commission, in which the court observed that it may not always be practically possible to file all affidavits in support of an election petition at the same time as the petition is filed.
However, Justice Nabakooza distinguished that case from Rubongoya’s case, noting that the affidavits in the present matter were expressly filed as affidavits in support of the petition.
The judge relied on Rule 4(8) of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) (Election Petitions) Rules, which requires an election petition to be accompanied by an affidavit setting out the facts on which the petition is based, together with a list of documents on which the petitioner intends to rely.
Justice Nabakooza also cited the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Yusuf Mutembuli versus Moses Nagwomu Musamba and Another, in which affidavits filed after the petition were considered supplementary affidavits requiring leave of court.
The judge rejected Rubongoya’s argument that the affidavits could be filed before the scheduling conference without leave.
“Given that these affidavits are referred to as affidavits in support of the Petition, the statutory procedure mandates that they ought to have been filed concurrently with the Petition itself,” she ruled.
On Rubongoya’s complaints concerning Kabanda’s nomination, academic qualifications and differences in her names, the judge declined to strike out the matters as pre-election complaints.
The court found that Rubongoya had sought certified copies of Kabanda’s academic documents and nomination papers from the Electoral Commission before the election, but only received them on February 26, 2026, more than a month after polling.
The judge, therefore, found that the complaints relating to Kabanda’s nomination, academic qualifications and name differences were not barred as pre-election matters.
However, the court struck out Rubongoya’s complaint concerning 23 polling stations in Nakasero II and Kololo II, which he alleged were located in restricted security areas.
Rubongoya had argued that the polling stations were maintained contrary to a 2010 High Court order in the case of Erias Lukwago versus Electoral Commission, which he said barred the establishment of polling stations in restricted security areas.
Justice Nabakooza found that the Electoral Commission’s voter register dated December 15, 2025, had already listed Kololo II and Nakasero II as electoral areas with polling stations before the January 15 election.
The judge said Rubongoya had not raised a complaint about the alleged restricted areas with the Electoral Commission before the polling day.
“I find that this court is not clothed with original jurisdiction in regard to the matter,” she declared.
She relied on the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Christopher Ojera versus the Electoral Commission and another, which held that Section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act provides a procedure for dealing with disputes concerning electoral arrangements, with an appeal to the High Court.
The judge consequently held that a complaint that a polling station was improperly located should have been raised before the election.
Justice Nabakooza ordered that the complaint concerning polling stations in Nakasero II and Kololo II be struck out, the 97 affidavits and their attachments be expunged, and the pleadings be closed.
The petition will proceed to a scheduling conference.