Court dismisses party card case against Bobi Wine party NUP

__________________

The High Court in Kampala has dismissed a case in which Bashir Mulisa had sued National Unity Platform (NUP), the leading Opposition political party in the country, for issuing the party card to Mosh Ssendi for the position of Lord Councillor Makindye II East in the forthcoming general election, which he argued was irregular.

Mulisa wanted the court to issue an order quashing his party's decision of granting the party card to Ssendi, arguing that the decision was irregular and thus ultra vires.

However, in a ruling dated January 12, 2026, High Court Judge Joyce Kavuma dismissed the case on grounds that such matters fall outside the province of judicial determination being internal to the party’s governance structures.

“I find that this application is incompetent before this court as the applicant did not exhaust the existing internal dispute mechanism of his party. The application is dismissed with no order as to costs,” ruled Justice Kavuma.

Citing Article 6.21(i) of NUP Constitution, Justice Kavuma said Mulisa was under a strict obligation to first exhaust the existing internal remedies and dispute resolution mechanisms provided within the NUP party constitution.

“The applicant in bypassing these mechanisms and prematurely invoking the jurisdiction of this court makes the instant application procedurally improper and wholly premature,” ruled Justice Kavuma.

Citing the decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court in the case of Hon. Patrick C. Onuoha versus Chief R.B.K. Okafor, Chairman N.P.P, and others of 1983, Justice Kavuma said the issues which Mulisa raised are political questions rather than legal ones and are therefore not amenable to adjudication by a court of law.

“Respect for party autonomy is to preserving and maintaining the proper balance between judicial oversight and political governance,” Justice Kavuma said.

Justice Kavuma said a party member who is aggrieved by the outcome of a candidate selection process does not, without more, disclose a cause of action capable of raising justiciable issues concerning enforceable rights or obligations determinable by the courts.

“Judicial intervention is therefore exceptional and confined to instances of clear illegality or violation of the law but not to a re-evaluation of the merits of a political party’s internal decisions on candidate selection,” Justice Kavuma noted.

Justice Kavuma guided that the selection, nomination or vetting of candidates for elective office lies within the exclusive preserve and jurisdiction of the political party concerned, and thus courts can only interfere for a good reason but cannot dictate to a political party who should or should not be selected to contest an election on its behalf.

Mulisa argued there was a component of 60% that comes from community engagement in selecting the party flagbearer for each position, which Ssendi, who was granted the party card, did not meet because he was initially running for the position of Makindye East Member of Parliament.