Court dismisses petition challenging election of Workers' MPs
Justice Allan Paul Nshimye also found that the petition had not been properly served on several respondents and awarded costs to the respondents.
Court dismisses petition challenging election of Workers' MPs
__________________
The High Court in Kampala has dismissed an election petition challenging the election of five Workers’ Members of Parliament for the 2026–2031 term, ruling that the petitioner had no legal standing to bring the case.
Justice Allan Paul Nshimye of the Civil Division dismissed the petition filed by Michael Bhamusangala against; Fiona Nakku, Annet Birungi, Margret Rwabushaija Namubiru, Arinaitwe Rwakajara, Gilbert Agaba and the Electoral Commission.
In his ruling delivered on October 20, 2026, the judge held that Bhamusangala had not demonstrated that he was a candidate, who lost the election or a registered voter supported by at least 500 registered voters, as required under Section 79(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
The judge noted that the petitioner had described himself in the petition as a self-employed worker and custodian of workers’ rights, labour laws and regulations.
However, the court found that he had not provided evidence showing that he qualified under the law to challenge the election.
The respondents had raised preliminary objections, arguing that the petition was incompetent because Bhamusangala lacked locus standi, the court lacked jurisdiction over some of the complaints, and that the petition had not been served in accordance with the law. A locus standi refers to the legal requirement that a claimant must have a sufficient interest or connection to a matter before they can bring judicial review proceedings or challenge a public authority's decision in court.
The court also found that the petition had not been properly served on the first, second, third and fourth respondents.
The judge noted that the petitioner had not applied for substituted service as required by the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) (Election Petitions) Rules.
The court also considered the service of the petition on Birungi, Rwabushaija and Rwakajara through WhatsApp.
The judge held that the affidavit of service did not establish that the messages had been read by the intended recipients. The process server had reported that the WhatsApp messages showed double grey ticks but not double blue ticks.
The court found that the evidence did not establish that the three respondents had been effectively served in accordance with the law.
Consequently, the judge upheld the preliminary objections concerning service and dismissed the petition against the first, second, third and fourth respondents.
However, the objections concerning service were not upheld in respect of Agaba and the Electoral Commission.
He cited Article 61(1)(f) of the Constitution and Section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act, which provide for the Electoral Commission to handle election-related complaints arising before and during polling.
The judge noted that the High Court has jurisdiction to hear petitions challenging parliamentary election results under Sections 79 and 80 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
He found that only grounds two and three of Bhamusangala’s 18 grounds could be considered by the High Court, as they concerned alleged non-compliance with election laws.
The remaining grounds were found to relate to matters outside the court’s original jurisdiction in an election petition.
The judge also referred to an earlier application filed by Bhamusangala in 2025, seeking to stop the nomination of candidates for the workers’ parliamentary seats over the alleged failure to display the national workers’ voters register.
In the 2025 case, Justice Bonny Isaac Teko declined to stop the nomination exercise, but awarded the applicant sh50m in damages and costs.
The judge upheld the preliminary objection on locus standi and dismissed the Parliamentary Election Petition with costs to the respondents.
He also ruled that two applications by Nakku and Rwabushaija seeking to strike out or dismiss the petition had been overtaken by the dismissal of the main petition.