Masaka court blocks Nalubega bid to amend election petition
Justice Bernard Namanya dismissed the application on September 21, 2026, ruling that the proposed amendments would materially alter the original election petition after expiry of the statutory 30-day period for filing election petitions.
Masaka court blocks Nalubega bid to amend election petition
_______________
The High Court in Masaka has dismissed an application by Grace Nalubega seeking to amend an election petition challenging the election and qualification of Juliet Suubi Kinyamatama.
Justice Bernard Namanya dismissed the application on September 21, 2026, ruling that the proposed amendments would materially alter the original election petition after expiry of the statutory 30-day period for filing election petitions.
Nalubega filed Election Petition No. 6 of 2026 on March 6, 2026, challenging Kinyamatama’s election.
The election results were published in the Uganda Gazette on February 6, 2026.
Through Election Petition Application No. 9 of 2026, Nalubega sought leave to amend the petition, file a supplementary affidavit and introduce additional affidavits from witnesses concerning allegations of bribery and non-compliance with electoral laws.
She argued that the proposed amendments were intended to clarify and particularise matters already pleaded in the petition, including Kinyamatama’s identity, qualification and nomination.
Kinyamatama and the Electoral Commission opposed the application, arguing that the proposed amendments introduced fresh claims concerning Kinyamatama’s qualification, identity, academic documents and registration as a voter after the statutory period for filing an election petition had expired.
In his ruling, Justice Namanya said parliamentary election petitions are special proceedings subject to strict statutory timelines.
The judge said that once the prescribed period for presenting an election petition has expired, the court cannot permit an amendment introducing a fresh ground, distinct cause of action or substantially enlarging the case originally pleaded.
Justice Namanya noted that the proposed amended petition sought to challenge Kinyamatama’s nomination on the ground that she was nominated as “Suubi Kinyamatama Juliet K”, while the person appearing on the National Voters Register was “Kobusingye Juliet”.
Nalubega also sought to question the relationship between the two names and challenge the Electoral Commission’s decision to nominate Kinyamatama on that basis.
“The assertion was not originally pleaded in the original Election Petition and in my view fundamentally alters its character,” Justice Namanya ruled.
The judge noted that the original petition was filed within the mandatory 30-day period, but the application to amend it was filed on April 28, 2026, after the statutory period had expired.
The judge cited the High Court decision in Wanyoto versus Electoral Commission and Another, which held that a parliamentary election petition may not be amended after expiry of the statutory filing period where the proposed amendment introduces new grounds.
Justice Namanya also referred to decisions of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal emphasising the mandatory timelines governing election petitions.
The judge, however, noted that the identity issue was already expressly pleaded in Nalubega’s original petition.
He said the petition already raised the question of whether Kinyamatama, holder of National Identification Number CF88036109PUZF, was the same person as Kobusingye Juliet, whose name appeared on academic documents verified by the Uganda National Examinations Board.
The judge also noted that the allegation of illegal practices, including bribery, was already contained in paragraph 13 of the original petition.
He therefore found that the proposed amendments were unnecessary and served no useful purpose.
Justice Namanya further held that allowing the amendment could affect the court’s ability to hear and determine Election Petition No. 6 of 2026 within the mandatory 30-day period from commencement of the hearing.
The application was dismissed, with costs to abide the final determination of the election petition.