Wakiso court dismisses petition challenging LC5 Kyeyune’s victory
“I hold that a registered voter cannot impugn the election of district chairperson. The standing is exclusively given to an aggrieved candidate,” he ruled. Justice Okello said an aggrieved candidate means a candidate who contested and lost the election for district chairperson.
Kyeyune was declared the winner of the January 22, 2026 election with 177,710 votes. Nasifu Najja came second with 99,235 votes, while Flavia Nakafeero was third with 10,597 votes. (New Vision/Files)
WAKISO - The High Court in Wakiso has dismissed an election petition challenging the election of Ian Kyeyune Sengozi as Wakiso district chairperson, ruling that a registered voter who was not a candidate in the election cannot challenge the election of a district chairperson.
Justice George Okello made the ruling on September 25, 2026, after considering a preliminary objection raised by Kyeyune and the Electoral Commission (EC) against a petition filed by Farouq Lule.
Lule, a registered voter at 015 Lweza B Polio Rehabilitation Centre (KJ-MUD) polling station in Mutungo ward, Ndejje division, Makindye-Ssabagabo municipality, filed the petition challenging Kyeyune’s nomination, election and declaration.
He said he had secured 1,114 signatures from registered voters in Wakiso district to support the petition.
Kyeyune and the EC opposed the petition, with the EC arguing that it was incompetent, unsustainable and misconceived and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.
Kyeyune was declared the winner of the January 22, 2026 election with 177,710 votes. Nasifu Najja came second with 99,235 votes, while Flavia Nakafeero was third with 10,597 votes.
Lule was not among the candidates.
During the preliminary objection, EC lawyer John Musiime of Dentons Advocates argued that Lule lacked locus standi under Section 150(1) of the Local Governments Act because he was not an aggrieved candidate.
He argued that although Section 79(2)(b) of the Parliamentary Elections Act allows a registered voter supported by 500 signatures to challenge a parliamentary election, the same provision does not apply to district chairperson elections.
Kyeyune’s lawyer, Mohammed Ali Kajubi, adopted the EC’s submissions.
For Lule, lawyer Jonathan Elotu argued that Ndaula did not decide whether a registered voter supported by 500 signatures could challenge a district chairperson’s election.
He relied on Section 150(3)(b) of the Local Governments Act and the High Court decision in Okidi & 4 others versus Odoki W’ Oceng, Election Petition No.09 of 2011.
Lawyers Kenneth Paul Kakande and Edward Kasibante supported the argument that Section 150(1) should be read together with Section 150(3).
Justice Okello, however, said Section 150(1) specifically provides that an aggrieved candidate for chairperson may petition the High Court, while subsections (2) and (3) concern challenges to councillor elections.
He said the Ndaula decision remained binding because it had neither been overturned by the Supreme Court nor departed from by the Court of Appeal.
The judge considered Okidi, where the High Court had allowed registered voters supported by more than 500 signatures to challenge an LC5 election, but said that decision had not followed the binding Court of Appeal precedent.
“I hold that a registered voter cannot impugn the election of district chairperson. The standing is exclusively given to an aggrieved candidate,” he ruled.
Justice Okello said an aggrieved candidate means a candidate who contested and lost the election for district chairperson.
He rejected the argument that the Local Governments Act should be interpreted in the same way as the Parliamentary Elections Act, saying the wording of the provisions was different.
“It is not for the courts to legislate under the guise of interpretation,” he said
The judge consequently held that Lule lacked locus standi and dismissed the petition challenging Kyeyune’s election
On costs, Justice Okello said the Local Governments Act was silent but relied on Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, under which costs generally follow the outcome
However, he noted that the case had been disposed of at a preliminary stage, the parties had benefited from the court’s guidance, and the issue was of public importance.
He therefore awarded each respondent half of the costs, to be taxed and paid by Lule.