Court dismisses Kinkiizi West election petition
Justice Richard Wejuli Wabwire dismissed the petition filed by Victor Rushokora, holding that it disclosed no cause of action because the alleged defects in Kaberuka’s nomination were apparent from the nomination documents and could have been raised before polling day.
Kaberuka (Pictured) was declared the winner of the January 15, 2026, parliamentary election by the Electoral Commission.
RUKUNGIRI - The High Court in Rukungiri has dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Kinkiizi County West Member of Parliament (MP) James Niringiyimana Ruugi Kaberuka, ruling that the petitioner raised nomination issues that should have been challenged before the election.
Justice Richard Wejuli Wabwire dismissed the petition filed by Victor Rushokora, holding that it disclosed no cause of action because the alleged defects in Kaberuka’s nomination were apparent from the nomination documents and could have been raised before polling day.
Rushokora had petitioned the court on April 1, 2026, seeking to nullify Kaberuka’s election and have a fresh election conducted.
Kaberuka was declared the winner of the January 15, 2026, parliamentary election by the Electoral Commission.
In his petition, Rushokora alleged that Kaberuka was not validly nominated on October 23, 2025, and was not qualified to contest for the seat.
He alleged that Kaberuka’s nomination papers were supported by eight registered voters instead of the 10 required by law.
Rushokora further alleged that the national identification numbers and signatures on the nomination papers did not belong to the persons named, while the signature of Kaberuka’s appointed agent did not match the signature on a copy of the said agent’s national identity card.
The petitioner also alleged that Kaberuka did not possess the minimum academic qualification of Advanced Level or its equivalent.
Rushokora further claimed that the names appearing on Kaberuka’s national identity card and academic documents were so different that they referred to different people.
The Electoral Commission and the returning officer denied the allegations, saying Kaberuka had presented the required number of nominators, who were verified against the National Voters’ Register.
The commission also said the required academic documents had been presented and accepted, while the variation in names had been explained in accordance with the law.
The respondents subsequently raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the petition disclosed no cause of action because it was based entirely on pre-election nomination complaints.
They argued that under Section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act, such complaints should have been lodged with the Electoral Commission before polling.
Justice Wabwire relied on the Court of Appeal decision in the case of Christine Nandagire Ndiwalana versus Ruth Katushabe in Election Petition Appeal Number 0034 of 2021, which held that a petitioner who does not challenge a nomination within the stipulated period and through the prescribed forum is estopped from raising the same issues after an election.
The judge said the alleged defects in Kaberuka’s nomination could all have been identified by inspecting the nomination file.
“The defects alleged, a short list of supporters, identity numbers and signatures checkable against the register, an agent’s acceptance on the file and academic papers presented to the returning officer, were apparent on that file and could have been taken to the Commission before polling,” Justice Wabwire ruled.
The judge noted that no complaint had been lodged with the Electoral Commission before the election.
“Want of cause of action is not a technicality. It goes to whether the petition is properly before the Court at all,” he said.
The court also considered Rushokora’s indication that he intended to amend the petition to include allegations of ballot stuffing.
Justice Wabwire said Rushokora had not amended the petition and, in any event, such an amendment would run afoul of Rule 5 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules, which bars an amendment introducing a new ground after the 30-day period within which to file an election petition following gazettement.
The judge also rejected the petitioner’s request to reserve the preliminary objection for written submissions after an adjournment.
He cited Order 6 Rules 28 and 29 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which allow a point of law to be raised on the pleadings, and where it disposes of the whole suit, to be determined at once.
Justice Wabwire said the court was not required to wait for written submissions or a further adjournment before determining the objection.
He further observed that election petitions are subject to a time-bound jurisdiction, with the law requiring them to be determined within six months.
The judge concluded that the decision in Christine Nandagire Ndiwalana versus Ruth Katushabe was binding on the High Court.
“A petitioner who does not complain of nomination within the time and by the forum provided by Section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act is estopped from raising those matters after the election,” he ruled.