Nuwabeine loses appeal bid over Makindye East MP’s papers
Citing section 85 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, the justices said an appeal is a creature of a statute, and that the section does not expressly provide for appeals against interlocutory rulings made in the course of hearing an election petition.
Nuwabeine loses appeal bid over Makindye East MP’s papers
___________________
The Court of Appeal has rejected Judith Nuwabeine’s request to allow her appeal a High Court ruling in which Justice Prof. Andrew Khaukha declined to investigate the academic credentials of Makindye East MP Ali Kasirye Nganda Mulyanyama while hearing the petition she lodged against him.
In a ruling delivered on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, Court of Appeal justices; Eva Luswata, Margaret Tibulya and Cornelia Sabiiti Kakooza held that interlocutory rulings in parliamentary election petitions are not immediately appealable.
“The application for leave to appeal against part of the ruling and orders of the trial judge in election petition number 008 of 2026 is declined. The petition shall proceed before the High Court for determination of the remaining matters in accordance with the law. Costs of this application are awarded to the respondents (Mulyanyama and Electoral Commission (EC),” the justices ruled.
Nuwabeine’s lawyers, led by Fox Odoi, had relied on the court’s decision in the case of Ismael Kasule versus Joseph Ruyonga and the EC, to lodge the application.
However, the justices followed the reasoning in the case of Nelson Gagawala versus Kenneth Lubogo, which they said is consistent with the statutory framework and the requirement for the expeditious determination of election disputes, to dismiss the application.
“This court cannot assume appellate jurisdiction where the law has not expressly conferred it. Permitting appeals against individual rulings or grounds disposed of during the hearing of an election petition would encourage piecemeal and protracted litigation. Such an approach would undermine the expeditious procedure envisaged by the legislature,” they noted.
The justices went on; “In our view, if this court were to entertain an appeal whenever the High Court disposes of an interlocutory matter, it would effectively permit election petitions to be litigated in instalments, thereby undermining the requirement for their expeditious determination.”
The justices said the mere existence of arguable questions of law cannot, on its own, confer a right of appeal where the statute has not provided one.
“The applicant must await the final determination of the election petition before pursuing such appellate remedies as may be available under the law. Any dissatisfaction with the decision may then be raised in accordance with the applicable appellate procedure,” the justices said.
After EC declared Mulyanyama the winner with 17,700 votes, Nuwabeine, who received 15,522 votes, filed an election petition challenging his victory on several grounds, including his alleged lack of academic qualifications.
Nuwabeine was the National Resistance Movement (NRM) flagbearer while Mulyanyama contested on the National Unity Platform (NUP) ticket in the hotly contested January 15 polls.
However, in a ruling delivered on September 28, 2026, Justice Khaukha held that Nuwabeine was barred by estoppel from challenging Mulyanyama’s nomination, academic qualifications (O' and A' level results), deed poll and identity documents, because the court lacked original jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to pre-polling disputes as they are the preserve of the EC to resolve.
Being barred by estopel means a person is legally prevented from denying, contradicting or asserting something because their previous words, actions or omissions led another to rely on them to their detriment.
Following that ruling, Nuwabeine applied for leave to appeal, accusing Justice Khaukha of disregarding her evidence. Her complaint to the EC about Mulyanyama’s academic qualifications had also been ignored.
The decision means Justice Khaukha will now determine only whether the elections were conducted in compliance with the electoral law, and if there was non-compliance, whether it affected the results in a substantial manner.