HABARI DAILY I Kampala, Uganda I Justice Allan Paul Nshimye rules that the Electoral Commission unlawfully excluded results from 22 polling stations but finds that adding the omitted votes would not have overturned the NRM candidate’s victory over NUP’s Alex Waiswa Mufumbiro.
Key details have emerged from the High Court decision that upheld the parliamentary victory of National Resistance Movement (NRM) candidate Fredrick Ruhindi in the Nakawa Division East constituency, despite finding that the Electoral Commission (EC) unlawfully excluded results from 22 polling stations during the January 15, 2026 general elections.
In a judgment delivered on October 30, 2026, Justice Allan Paul Nshimye dismissed an election petition filed by National Unity Platform (NUP) deputy spokesperson Alex Waiswa Mufumbiro, ruling that although the omission constituted an electoral irregularity, it did not substantially affect the final outcome of the election.
The court found that the EC had violated mandatory provisions of Sections 72 and 78 of the Parliamentary Elections Act by failing to include the results from the affected polling stations in the final tally.
However, the judge determined that the available declaration of results forms demonstrated that incorporating the omitted votes would not have overturned Ruhindi’s victory.
How the 22 polling stations were excluded
Mufumbiro had challenged Ruhindi’s election, arguing that the exclusion of results from the 22 polling stations undermined the credibility of the election and denied voters the benefit of having their votes reflected in the officially declared results.
He raised the matter in paragraph seven of his petition, relying on declaration of results forms marked L1 to L22, which were attached to his supporting affidavit at pages 932 to 960.
During the hearing, an Electoral Commission witness, identified as Mr Ssekya, reportedly acknowledged under cross-examination that the results from the 22 polling stations had not been included in the final tally.
Justice Nshimye further examined the parliamentary election tally sheets submitted by both Mufumbiro and Ruhindi and established that the documents were identical and confirmed the omission.
The judge also compared the declaration of results forms presented by the two parties, which showed the actual votes obtained by the four parliamentary candidates at the affected polling stations.
The court consequently established that the Electoral Commission had failed to comply with the law governing the tallying and declaration of parliamentary election results.
Mufumbiro argued that the 22 polling stations had a combined register of 11,117 voters and that their exclusion was sufficient grounds to nullify Ruhindi’s election and order a fresh poll.
Why the court refused to nullify the election
Despite establishing that the Electoral Commission had acted unlawfully, Justice Nshimye said the court was required to determine whether the irregularity substantially affected the outcome of the election before considering nullification.
Under Section 81(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, non-compliance with electoral provisions can constitute grounds for setting aside an election where the breach substantially affects the result.
The judge explained that the approach to determining the effect of excluded polling stations depends on whether the actual votes cast at those stations are known.
Where the votes are unknown, courts may consider the number of registered voters at the affected polling stations in relation to the winning margin to establish whether their participation could have changed the outcome.
However, where declaration of results forms are available and the actual votes obtained by candidates can be established, the court should use those figures to determine their effect on the winning margin.
“Where the votes were counted at the affected polling stations and are known but they were not added in the tally sheet, then it is fair to consider those results only since they are known by mathematically adding them to the votes of the parties that participated in the election to determine if the existing winning margin is diminished,” Justice Nshimye ruled.
Mufumbiro gained more votes but Ruhindi retained lead
Applying this principle, the judge examined the declaration of results forms from the 22 polling stations and established that Mufumbiro had obtained 1,072 votes, compared with Ruhindi’s 599.
The omitted results therefore gave Mufumbiro a net advantage of 473 votes.
Nevertheless, the additional votes were insufficient to overturn Ruhindi’s lead, which had been declared at 3,508 votes.
After incorporating the omitted results, the judge calculated that Ruhindi’s winning margin would reduce to 3,035 votes, leaving him comfortably ahead of his closest challenger.
The court consequently concluded that although the Electoral Commission’s failure to include the results was unlawful, the omission did not substantially change the outcome of the election.
“I find that based on the evidence on record, the non-compliance with the provisions of the Act relating to elections, specifically the failure to include results from 22 polling stations in the final tally, did not affect the results of the election in a substantial manner,” Nshimye ruled.
Implications of the judgment
In dismissing Mufumbiro’s argument, the court relied on established legal principles, including decisions in Baganda Fred v Kayi and Byamukama v Kanyoro, which emphasise that elections should not automatically be nullified because of administrative errors or irregularities that do not substantially affect their outcomes.
The judgment therefore preserves Ruhindi’s parliamentary victory while establishing that the Electoral Commission’s handling of the 22 polling stations did not comply with the law.
About the Author
