Akol Hellen Odeke v Okodel Umar (Civil Appeal 9 of 2021) [2024] UGSC 25 (7 May 2024)

5 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CORAM: OWINY - DOLLO, CJ; MWONDHA, Tt HAISE, CHIBITA & MUSOKE; JJ.S.C CML APPEAL No. 09 OF 2021 (Artsing ftom Court of Appeal Electiod Petiaiod Appe4l No, 06 of 2O2O) which (Arose out of Soroti Hlgh Court Misceltadeous Cause No. 22 of 2O2O) AKOL HELLEN ODEKE APPELLANT VERSUS OKODEL UMAR RESPONDENT 10 15 JUDGMENT OF OWINY _ DOLLO; CJ Introduction This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Musota, Bamugemereire, and Kibeedi, JJ.A.) dated 18'h March 2021; allowing the appeal in Election Petition Appeal No. 6 of 2020. 20 Background The Appellant sought to be nominated to contest for the position of Member of Parliament for Bukedea District in the Parliamentary elections then due to be held in 2021. However, the Respondent herein filed Misc. Cause No. 22 of 2O2O in the Soroti High Court, 25 challenging the nomination of the Appellant herein on grounds that the Appellant's name "Akol Hellen", which appeared on the Register of voters, differed from the name "Akol Hellen Odeke", which she was using in expressing her interest to contest for the elections. He then sought orders of Court that: 30 "a) The Respondent is not a registered voter and thus incapable of being nominated and or elected for the 1 position of Woman Member of Parliament for Bukedea District as such. b) A declaration that the Respondent does not possess the minimum academic qualifications to vie for the position of s Woman Member of Parliament for Bukedea District. (c) A declaration that the Respondent does not qualify for the nomination for the position of Woman Member of Parliament for Bukedea District. (d) An order of injunction restraining the Electoral 10 Commission from accepting the nomination of the Respondent as a Parliamentary Candidate for the Woman Member of Parliament for Bukedea District for the forthcoming election slated for 2021'. (e) Costs of this application be provided for. 15 The Court allowed the application; and issued the orders sought; owing to which, the Returning Officer declined to nominate the Appellant. In a letter dated 16'h October 2020, she complained to and sought 'the intervention of the Electoral Commission to cause' her to be nominated. After conducting a hearing pursuant to the provisions 20 of Art 61(1) (f) of the Constitution, the Electoral Commission notified her by letter of its decision upholding that of the Returning Officer who had declined to nominate her. Subsequent thereto, acting in the exercise of its mandate as is provided for under section 14 (1) (b) & (2) of the Parliamentary Election Act 2005, as amended, the Electoral 2s Commission declared one Hon. Among Anita Annet, who had been nominated unopposed, as the Woman Member of Parliament elect for Bukedea District; and published this in the Uganda Gazzette. Aggrieved at the decision of the Electoral Commission as well, the Appellant filed Election Petition No. 8 of 2O2O in the High Court, 2 5 against the Electoral Commission; seeking an order directing the Electoral Commission to nominate her as a candidate to contest for the post of Woman Member of Parliament for Bukedea District. However, owing to the publication, in the Gazette, of Hon. Among Anita Annet as the duly elected Member of Parliament for Bukedea District, the Respondent withdrew Election Petition No. 8 of 2O2O for having been overtaken by events. She instead appealed to the Court of Appeal vide Election Petition Appeal No. 6 of 2020; against the High Court's decision in Soroti H.C. Misc. Cause No. 22 of 2020. With leave of Court, the Appellant amended the Memorandum of Appeal filed in the Court of Appeal; thereby seeking further orders, inter alia, that: (c) A consequential order be issued to the Electoral Commission to degazzette the declaration of Among Anita Annet as an unopposed candidate for the election for Woman MP Bukedea district and for the Appellant to be duly nominated; (d) A consequential order that a fresh nomination exercise and election date be set by the electoral Commission on respect of the election for Woman MP. Bukedea district. The Court of Appeal held that the Soroti High Court had erred in entertaining Misc. Cause No. 22 of 2020, as it lacked jurisdiction to do so. It accordingly declared the impugned High Court decision in the matter a nullity; and consequently overturned it. The Court of Appeal however declined to grant the consequential orders sought by the Appellant; for the reason that to do so would adversely affect a person who was a non-party to the suit, and who had not been accorded a hearing. The Court held that in the circumstances, granting the orders sought would have been in breach of, and 10 15 3 20 5 derogation from, the right to a fair hearing securely enshrined in the Constitution. It is against this part of the decision of the Court of Appeal denying the grant of consequential orders, which the Appellant has appealed to this Court. The grounds of appeal are: 1. That the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they declined to issue consequential orders directing the Electoral Commission to revoke the gazette Notice declaring Hon. Among Anita Annet as an unopposed candidate for Woman Representative in Parliament for Bukedea contrary to the provisions of S. 14 (3) of the Parliamentary Election Act No. 17 of 2005. 2. That the learned Justices of the Court of Appeal erred in law when they held that exercising their inherent jurisdiction by issuing orders which would affect Hon. Among who was declared unopposed on the basis of the void court order in Miscellaneous Cause No. 22 of 2020 would amount to condemning her unheard. For the Respondent's part, his Counsel filed a notice under rule 88 (1) and (2) of the Rules of this Court that part of the decision of the Court of Appeal ought to be affirmed on grounds other than those relied on by the Court of Appeal. These other grounds are that the Court of Appeal neither had any original jurisdictions under section 60-64 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, nor any residual jurisdiction, to revoke the gazette notice declaring Hon. Among Anita Annet as the Member of Parliament for Bukedea district; elected unopposed. This is because the remedy sought was unavailable. Pursuant to this, the Respondent filed Civil Application No. 16 of 2021, challenging the competence of the appeal and the jurisdiction of this Court to hear it or grant the orders sought. The Respondent reasoned in the application that no appeal lies from the decision and 10 15 20 25 4 30 orders of the Court of Appeal in Election Petitions; hence, this Court has no jurisdiction under the applicable law to grant the consequential orders sought in the appeal. This Court disallowed the application on the ground that Soroti H.C. Misc. Cause No. 22 Of 2020 5 was not an election petition, but an ordinary civil suit. Court then reiterated the principle in law that where an appellate Court entertains a new matter that has been raised for the first time before it, whatever decision the Court makes thereon becomes an integral part of the decision in the original suit, or of the suit as it was before 10 the trial Court. This Court held further that owing to its finding that the instant appeal is properly before this Court, it follows that this Court has jurisdiction to pronounce itself on the second issue in the application; namely, whether this Court should quash the 1s nomination of Hon Among Anita Annette. However, since the resolution of that ground would go to the merit of the appeal, this Court deferred the determination of the ground to the consideration of this appeal from which that application arose. Representation 20 At the hearing of the Appeal, the Appellant was represented by Counsel Jude Byamukama together with Counsel Desire Mulindwa Muwonge; while the Respondent was represented by Counsel Caleb Alaka together with Counsel Alex Kamukama, holding brief for Counsel Joseph Kyazze. Both Counsel for the Appellant and for the 25 Respondent filed written submissions. Counsel for the Appellant also filed written submissions in rejoinder. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that, the Appellant had been locked out of the justice process when she was left without relief; Issue 1: Whether the Appellant is entitled to the consequential orders sought. and prayed that this Court grants her justice. He submitted that as a fact that could be verified from the Court record, both the Returning officer and the Electoral Commission relied on the Court order in Misc. Cause No. 22 of 2020 to bar the Respondent's nomination; as a s result of which only one candidate was nominated and gazetted as an unopposed candidate. In essence, the result is that the order in Misc. Cause No. 22 of 2020 denied the Respondent the right to appeal the decision of the Electoral Commission to the High Court in Soroti; and yet unless the court set aside the orders in Miscellaneous Cause 10 No. 22 of 2020, she would find no redress. She therefore opted to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Counsel clarified that even though the Court in Misc. Cause No. 22 of 2O2O did not direct the Electoral Commission to nominate and or gazette Hon. Among Anita as an unopposed candidate, that is what resulted from the orders in Misc. 15 22 of 2020. 20 25 In response, counsel for the Respondent contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant the orders sought by the Appellant; as it is only the High Court, which could issue such an order as a final appellate Court from the decision of the Electoral Commission or by the Court of Appeal as a final Court in Parliamentary election petitions. Counsel also argued that the orders could not be granted without affording Hon. Among Anita a hearing. Counsel for the Appellant argued in rejoinder that there is no right for Hon. Among Anita to be heard before granting the orders sought. What sections 14(3) and 16 of the Parliamentary Elections Act envisage, counsel argued, is that when a candidate is unopposed and not yet sworn in as MP, they have no right to be heard before they are de-gazetted because being unopposed is a default position, and further, no one has a right to being unopposed. The unopposed person intended to contest for an election. o 30 Counsel for the Respondent filed an additional authority; which, upon perusal, I find it bears no relevance to the instant matter on appeal before this Court. CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL. Issue 7: whether the Appellant is entitled to the grant of the consequential orders sought in the appeal. An appeal lies in this Court by virtue of Art L32 (2) of the Constitution and section 6(1) Judicature Act. This, we conclusively addressed in our determination of Civil Application No. 16 of 2021. In Court of Appeal Election Petition Appeal No. 06 of 2020, the order sought by the Appellant was for the Court of Appeal to direct the Electoral Commission to degazette the declaration of Among Anita Annet as an unopposed candidate in the election for Woman MP Bukedea district. Pursuant to this, the Appellant sought the consequential order that she (Appellant) be duly nominated to contest for the same position of Woman MP Bukedea district; followed by the order directing that a fresh nomination exercise and election date be set by the Electoral Commission for the election of Woman MP. Bukedea District. It is the decision of the Court of Appeal on these issues, which the Appellant is aggrieved at; thus giving rise to the instant appeal before this Court. 10 15 20 In order to appreciate this issue, it is important to set out the provisions of the various laws relied upon by counsel for the parties in the appeal. The first order sought (hereinafter referred to as the 2s first category) is one of the orders ordinarily available when dealing with complaints arising from the Electoral Commission as set out below. For this, section 14(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 2005 provides as follows: 7 " 14. Where no candidate or where one candidate is nominated (l)Where, at the close of the nomination days- (b) only one person has been duly nominalcLfor elceliolfor e constituency, the returnina officer shall forthwith declare that 10 15 20 25 erson dul electe me rli m n the pollina day fixed in accordsnec rvlhlhtsAe!. (2) Where a returning officer makes a declaration under subsection (1) (b), the returning officer shall notifv the Commission which shslJ cause to be published in the Gazette a notice of the name of the candidate declared so elected and the day with effect from which he or she was declared elected. (3) If, by virtue of an appeal under section 16 or as otherwise permitted under this Act, an additional candidate is later duly nominated, the Commission shall revoke the Gazette notice and the returning officer shall revoke his or her declaration." (Emphasis added) Section 16 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 2005 provides a remedy to an aggrieved person as follows: " 16. Right to complain to the Commission upon rejection of nomination paper Where a nomination paper of a person has been rejected or has been regarded as void by virtue of section 13- (a) the returninq officer shall forthwith notify the person of the decision giving reasons for the decision; and (b) the person shall have the right to complain against the decision to the Commission within seven days from the date of rejection and the Commission may confirm or reverse the 8 ( s. 15 from decision of the returning officer within seven days from the receipt of the complaint." of the Electoral Commission Act Cap 140 provides for appeals the Commission to the High Court as follows: " (1) Any complaint submitted in writing alleging any irregularity with any aspect of the electoral process at any stage, if not satisfactorily resolved at a lower level of authority, shall be examined and decided by the Commission; and where the irregularity is confirmed, the Commission shall take necessary action to correct the irregularity and any effects it may have caused. (2) An appeal shall lie to the Hiq h Court aqainst a decision of the 5 10 commission confirminq or reiectinq the existence of the irregularity. (3) The appeal shall be bv wav o f a Detition. suonorted bv affidavits of evidence. which shall clearlv specifv the declaration 20 25 that the Hiah Court is beina reauested to make." (Emphasis added) Art 64 (1) of the Constitution provides for the finality of the High Court decision in such a petition, as follows: "64. Appeals from decisions of the commission (1) Any person aggrieved by a dectsion of the Electoral Commission in respect of any of the complaints referred to in article 61 (1) (f) of this Constitution may appeal to the Hiqh Court. ... (4) A decision of the Hiah Court on an appeal under clause (1) or G) of this article shall be final." (Emphasis added) 9 15 5 Provisions relevant to the second category (petitions originating from the High Court in its original jurisdiction) are contained in article 86 of the Constitution, as follows: "86. Determination of questions of membership 1) The High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any question whether- (a) a person has been validly elected a member of Parliament or the seat of a member of Parliament has become vacant;" (Emphasis added) The Parliamentary Election Act, 2005 defines what an election petition under that Act is, prescribes which Court has jurisdiction to determine such a petition, and the person who has the locus standi to bring such a petition, and as well the timelines for taking such action. Section 1 of the Act defines an election petition as'a petition filed in accordance with section 60' of the Act. Section 60 ( I ) provides that election petitions 'under this Act shall be filed in the High Court.' Section 60 (2) of the Act provides that an election petition 'may be filed by any of the following persons- (a) A candidate who loses an election ;or (b) A registered voter in the constituency concerned supported by the signatures of not less than five hundred voters' registered in the constituency in a manner prescribed by regulations.' (Emphasis added) With regard to orders that can be made in an election petition, section 63 of the Act provides as follows: "63. Trial of Election Petitions 10 15 25 10 5 (6) At the conclusion of the trial of an election petition the court shall determine whether the Respondent was duly elected or whether any, and if so which person other than the Respondent was or is entitled to be declared duly elected, and if the court determines that- (c) the Respondent was not duly elected and that no other person was or is entitled to be declared duly elected- (i) the seat of the Respondent shall be declared vacant; and (ii) the court shall forthwith, certify its determination to the Clerk to Parliament and the Commission. " (Emphasis added) Under section 60 (3) of the Act, every election petition'shall be filed within thirty days after the day on which the result of the election is published by the Commrssion in the gazette.' The Court's decision on such a petition is, pursuant to the provision of s.66 (1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act 2005, as amended by Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Act 2020, appealable to the Court of Appeal. Section 66 of the Act provides as follows: " 66. Appeals (1) A person aggrieved by the determination of the High Court on hearing an election petition may appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision. (3) Notwithstanding section 6 of the Judicature Act, the decisions of the Court of Appeal pertaining to parliamentary elections petition shall be finaL " (Emphasis added) From the above provisions, and relevant to the appeal at hand, an election petition could only arise under two circumstances. In the 10 15 20 25 11 first circumstance, is a petition regarding matters arising prior to or during polling. Such a petition is provided for under Articles 60 (1) (f) and 64 (1) of the Constitution; or is lodged, on appeal, in the High Court under sections 15 (2) & (3) of the Electoral Commission Act. For 5 the petitions falling under this circumstance, there are no strict requirements on who has locus to lodge a complaint with the Returning officer, contesting a nomination. However, a person whose nomination paper is rejected, has a right to refer the complaint to the Commission; from whose decision such a person may, if 10 aggrieved, appeal to the High Court. Under s. 15 (4) of the Electoral Commission Act, the decision of the High Court on the matter is final. Falling under the second circumstance is the petition brought after the conclusion of the election, pursuant to the provisions of Art. 86 of the Constitution, and sections 60 and 86 of the Parliamentary 15 Elections Act 2005. For this, section 1 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 2005, defines an election petition as: "a petition filed after the conclusion of elections in accordance with section 60 in the High Court by either a candidate who loses an election; or a registered voter in the constituency concerned supported 20 by the signatures of not less than five hundred voters" registered in the constituency in a manner prescribed by the regulations. Under s. 66 (1) of the Act, as amended in 2020, a decision of the High Court in such a petition is appealable to the Court of Appeal; and, as is provided for under s. 66 (3) of the Act, the decision of the Court 2s of Appeal on the matter is final. This Court has pointed out, in Civil Application No. 16 of 2020, which arose from this appeal, that the matter for determination in this appeal neither falls under the category of election petitions provided for under section l5(3) of the Election Commission Act, nor under 12 5 those envisaged in sections 1 and 60 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 2005. This therefore renders the instant appeal to be an ordinary civil appeal; notwithstanding that the appeal in the Court of Appeal, leading to this appeal, was intituled as an election petition appeal. The first consequential order sought would degazette Hon. Among Anita Annet as the successful unopposed candidate for the Bukedea District Woman MP. Under the provisions of sections 14 and 16 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 2005, and section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act, only the High Court, as a final appellate Court from the decision of the Electoral Commission, has jurisdiction to grant the first remedy of consequential order she had sought. However, the Appellant withdrew Petition No. 8 of 2020, which she had lodged in the High Court against the decision of the Electoral Commission. The second order sought, which would be consequential to the first order sought, would declare the seat of the Woman MP of Bukedea district vacant; followed by an order for fresh elections. This is a remedy only available under s. 86(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act 2005. This order arises in a matter filed, under s. 60 of the Act, by a loser in an election for a parliamentary seat, or brought by a registered voter supported by signatures of at least 500 registered voters. However, the Appellant fell under neither of the two categories. If the consequential order sought were in a parliamentary election petition, only the High Court as a Court of first instance could have granted iU and the Court of Appeal, sitting as the Appellate and final Court for Parliamentary Elections Petitions, would have had the final say in the matter. It therefore follows that the consequential orders sought are not available to the Appellant. Before I take leave of this matter, I consider it pertinent to address myself to the contention by the Appellant, faulting the Court of 10 15 20 25 13 5 Appeal for having declined to apply rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules to issue the consequential orders she had sought. Rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules provides as follows: " (2) Nothing in these Rules shall be taken to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court, or of the High Court, to make such orders as may be necessary for achieving the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any such court, and that power shall extend to setting aside judgments which have been proved null and void after they have been passed, and shall be exercised to prevent an abuse of the process of any court caused by delay." On this, the Court of Appeal pronounced itself as follows: " Rule 2(2) of the Rules of this Court is no license for this Court to make orders which would tantamount to a breach of Constitutionality guaranteed rights, especially the non-derogable right to fair hearing as enshrined in Article 28 and 44 (c) of the Constitution." I am in full agreement with the Court of Appeal in its holding that it would be unfair for the Court to make orders that would adversely affect Hon. Anita Annet Among; and yet she was a non-party to the suit before Court for determination. To do otherwise would tantamount to condemning her without according her a hearing; which would have been in contravention of the well-established cardinal rule, couched in the maxim 'audi alteram partem', meaning 'hear the parties in turn'i which, as a non-derogable right enshrined in Article 28 of the 1995 Constitution, negates against any process done to the contrary. Accordingly then, the Court's exercise of the discretion provided for under Rule 2(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, must not be done in contravention of any provision of the law. 20 25 14 10 '15 5 Similarly, Rule 2(2) of the Supreme Court Rules, which is textually identical with that of the Court of Appeal Rules, cannot be relied upon to contravene the clear provision of the Constitution or any other law to the contrary. Hence, I find that it would be wrong for this Court to revoke the name of Hon. Annet Anita Among from the Gazette, and thereby cause her removal from Parliament, without having accorded her the right to be heard; as to do so would occasion grave injustice to her. Further to this, I find that the Court of Appeal erred in allowing the amendment of the memorandum of appeal that introduced the plea for the issuance of consequential orders, which would infringe on the rights of Hon. Annet Anita Among; and yet she had not been joined as a party to the appeal. I should point out that it was incumbent on the Court to first satisfy itself that the amendment of the memorandum of appeal sought would not adversely affect the Respondent or any other identifiable person. In the circumstance, the Court ought to have taken regard of the fact that the amendment introducing the plea for consequential orders, but without joining Hon. Anita Annet Among as a party to the appeal, and thereby denying her the exercise of the right to be heard before such orders could be granted, would occasion miscarriage of justice to her. Be that as it was, the Court of Appeal in fact realised this error in the course of considering the merits of the appeal; and justly acted in rectification. Kibeedi J.A. who delivered the lead judgment, with which the other members of the Coram concurred, stated as follows: "A memorandum of Appeal, subject to the interests of iustice, is always amenable to amendment. See uhuru Highway Development Ltd vs Central Bank of Kenya (2OO2) I E.A 314 (COA-K) ... 10 15 20 25 15 5 Amendments to pleadings sought before hearing should , generally speaking be freely allowed, if they can be made without injustice to the other side, and that there is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs ..." (emphasis added) Regarding the matter specifically before the Court, Kibedi J.A. stated as follows: "My understanding of the above Rule is that it gives this Court very wide inherent powers entitling us to make any orders that may be necessary for purposes of achieving justice and preventing abuse of the Court process. The question is whether those powers can be stretched to the extent of allowing this Court to grant remedy which affects even non- parties to this Appeal, especially Hon. Among who has already been gazzetted by the Electoral Commission as unopposed Woman Member of Parliament." It is this consideration, which the Court of Appeal ought to have had in mind before allowing the amendment seeking the issuance of the consequential orders in the terms spelt out in the application therefor. The Court would then have realised the injustice that would be occasioned to a non-party to the appeal, owing to such a person not having been accorded a hearing. It would have stemmed this misguided application for consequential orders at that point. In the event, the Court rightly declined to issue the consequential orders sought, for the reason that to do so would adversely affect Hon Anita Annet Among; and yet she had not been accorded the opportunity to exercise her right to be heard. It is therefore my finding that the instant Civil Appeal before this Court is ill founded, and accordingly ill fated; because this Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to grant the orders sought. I should 15 20 16 10 reiterate here that even if this Court had such jurisdiction, it would still have declined to grant such orders, owing to the fact that it would have had an adverse effect on a third party who is not a party to the suit, and was not accorded the opportunity to be heard on the 5 matter before Court. Accordingly then, I find that the Appellant is not entitled to any of the orders she has sought in this appeal. In the result, since I have no reason to depart from the finding and orders of the Court of Appeal impugned by the Appellant in this appeal, I would dismiss this appeal with costs to the Respondent. 1o Since Mwondha, Tuhaise, Chibita, & Musoke, JJSC, are in agreement with me with regard to my findings and the orders I have proposed hereinabove, orders are, accordingly, hereby issued in the terms thereof. _-\r"- Dated at Kampala this .....J. day of ....... 2024 t l a' ( ( r- \ >A Clf\ 17 15 Alfonse C. Owiny - Dollo Chief Justice \l a \|l... THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA Coram: OWINY-DOLLO, CJ, MWONDHA, TUHAISE, CHIBITA, MUSOKE,.IJ.SC CIVIL APPEAL NO. 09 OF 2O2I AKOL HELLEN ODEKE APPELLANT VERSUS OKODEL UMAR ............RESPONDENT (An appeal arising.fi'ont the deci.sion and.iuclgment in Court o.f Appeal Civil Appeal No. 6 of 2020 befttre Banrugemereire, Musota and Muzamiru. JJA dated l8'h day ol March 202 l) JL:DGM EN'I' oI.' NI WON DH A .ISC I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment of my learned brother Alfonse C. Owiny-Dollo, CJ. I concur with his analysis, reasoning and the decision that the appeal would be dismissed with costs. For emphasis Article 44(c) specitically prohibits derogation from particular human rights and freedoms as follows: - "Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution there shall be no derogation from enjoyment of the following rights and fieedoms; (a) ... (b)... (c) to fair hearing. equential orders as sought in the appeal, was never a party and was never heard or.rr-ts below and this coufi. It would be peal is allowed. It is apparent that ifthis Court grants the cons it would have direct efl'ect on a person who on the matter, in any oI the proceedings in c in contravenlion ol the Constitutiqpif the ap Dated at Kampala this ..........1.......day ol ') 024. J,,r / t. ...... ) J 4,. /,t.,., )\t-.J. :. :. 1.... Faith Mwondha .Iustice of the Supreme Court. 1 / Cr-- b dx^r) ( ( Y \l-v1 >4-\ CORAM: OWINY-DOLLO, C.J., MWONDHA, TUHAISE, CHIBITA, MUSOI(E ; JJ.SC. CIVIL APPEAL NO: 09 OF 2021 AKOt HETLEN ODEKE :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPELLANT VERSUS OKODEL UMAR RESPONDENT [An appeal a sing from lIe decr'sion and judgnent Court of Appeal No. 08 of 2020 (Bamugemereire, Musota and Muzamiru, JJA) dated 18u March 20211 IUDGMENT OF CHIBITA. JSC I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgment of my Lord the Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo. I agree with his decision and the orders he has proposed. 2024 \- b,- ( F Mike Chibita JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT \ +[ C (' THE REPUBLIC OT UGA.NDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UG.ENDA T'T KAMPf,I,A '*-r\'lr-' Dated at Kampala this ..........7-......day of ...... aL<) ( >4-\ THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CORAM: OWINY - DOLLO, CJ; MWONDHA, TUHAISE, CHIBITA & MUSOKE; JJ.S.C CIVIL APPEAL No. 09 OF 2O2I (Arising from Court of Appeal Election Petition Appeal No. 06 of 2O2O) which (Arose out of Soroti High Court Miscellaneous Cause No. 22 of 2O2O) AKOL HELLEN ODEKE APPiLLANT VERSUS OKODEL UMAR RESPONDENT JUDGMENT OF PERCY NIGHT TUHAISE I have read in draft the judgment of Alfonse Owiny - Dollo CJ. \+l^ Dated at Kampala this day of 2024 :+ (r I agree with is decision, conclusion, and orders that this appeal be dismissed with costs to the Respondent. fOq*r---;s- Percy Night Tuhaise Justice of the Supreme Court. k, (\ >/\ e-/ THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA CIVIL APPEAL NO. 09 OF 2O2T AKOL HELLEN ODEKE: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ::: : : : : : : : : : : :APPELLANT VERSUS OKODEL UMAR : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : RESPONDENT (Appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal (Bamugemereire, Musota and Kibeedi, ilA) in Election Petition Appeal No. 06 of 2020 dated 18h March, 2021) CORAM: THE. HON. THE CI ALFONSE OWINY.DOLLO HON. LADY JUSTICE FAITH MWONDH& JSC HON. LADY JUSTICE PERCY NIGHT TUHAISE, JSC HON. MR. JUSTICE MIKE CHIBITA, JSC HON. LADY JUSTICE ELIZABETH MUSOKE, JSC MENT F ELIZABETH M K I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of my learned brother The Hon. The Cl. For the reasons he has given therein I agree with him that this appeal should be dismissed on the terms he has proposed. Dated at Kampala this --\{A -f day of .........2024. Elizabeth Musoke Justice of the Supreme Court g,..r\ n*^ s w% >-L1 wo L