High court Dismisses Walukagga Petition on Denomination

The High Court in Kampala has upheld the Electoral Commission’s decision to cancel the parliamentary nomination of Mathias Walukagga, ruling that he did not meet the minimum academic qualifications required by law at the time of nomination. 

In a judgment delivered electronically on Sunday, Justice Simon Peter Kinobe dismissed Walukagga’s appeal, in which the Busiro East aspirant had challenged the Commission’s decision to nullify his nomination following a complaint by a registered voter in the constituency.

The court found that the Electoral Commission acted squarely within its constitutional and statutory mandate and correctly interpreted the law governing academic qualifications for parliamentary candidates. Walukagga had been nominated on October 23, 2025, to contest for the Busiro East parliamentary seat on the ticket of the National Unity Platform. 

His nomination was based on a Certificate of Mature Age and Aptitude Test issued by the Islamic University in Uganda in June 2023, together with a certificate of equivalence issued by the National Council for Higher Education in consultation with the Uganda National Examinations Board on June 11, 2025. 

However, the court noted that the mature age certificate was valid for only two years and expired on June 12, 2025, more than four months before Walukagga’s nomination. 

A registered voter, John Lubowa Kilimiro, subsequently challenged the nomination before the Electoral Commission, arguing that the expired certificate could not lawfully support Walukagga’s eligibility. 

After hearings conducted in November 2025, the Commission agreed and, on November 25, 2025, cancelled the nomination for failure to meet the minimum academic requirements under the Parliamentary Elections Act. 

Walukagga was formally notified of the decision on December 9, 2025. Dissatisfied, Walukagga petitioned the High Court, arguing that the mature age certificate remained valid because he had used it to enroll for further studies. He told the court that he joined St. Lawrence University in August 2023 and was, at the time of nomination, a third-year student pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Public Administration. 

He also relied on a letter from the Islamic University in Uganda dated November 11, 2025, suggesting that a mature age certificate remains valid once used for further studies. Justice Kinobe rejected this argument, holding that the law is explicit and leaves no room for extension or exception once the two-year validity period lapses. 

He observed that while the equivalence certificate was issued one day before the mature age certificate expired, the actual nomination occurred months after expiry. The judge ruled that once the mature age certificate expired, the certificate of equivalence equally collapsed and could not independently sustain eligibility for nomination.

He emphasised that Legal Notice No. 12 of 2015 strictly limits the validity of a mature age certificate to two years, unless otherwise provided by law, which was not the case. The court further held that the Electoral Commission did not overstep its mandate or encroach on the authority of the National Council for Higher Education.

Instead, it lawfully determined whether the documents presented were valid at the time of nomination, a function well within its constitutional authority to resolve election-related complaints. Justice Kinobe also dismissed objections regarding the Commission’s jurisdiction and the manner in which its decision was communicated. 

He ruled that the complaint was properly lodged and heard, noting that the Constitution permits a registered voter to file such a complaint either with a returning officer or directly with the Commission. He further upheld the validity of the decision communicated by the Commission’s chairperson, Justice Simon Byabakama, stating that the law allows the Commission to regulate its own procedures, provided all commissioners participate in the decision-making process. 

On the broader electoral context, the court stressed the importance of conclusively resolving nomination disputes before polling day. Justice Kinobe warned that allowing such matters to spill into the post-election period risks injustice, unnecessary litigation, and waste of public resources. He underscored that challenges to academic qualifications must be raised and settled before elections, unless the defect was not reasonably discoverable at the time of nomination. 

Consequently, the court dismissed Walukagga’s petition and confirmed that his nomination was invalidly made and lawfully set aside by the Electoral Commission. However, the judge declined to award costs, citing the public importance of the issues raised and noting that the case tested an area of electoral law not yet fully settled by Uganda’s jurisprudence. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. 

The decision now leaves 12 candidates in the Busiro East parliamentary race. These include incumbent Medard Lubega Sseggona, running as an independent after losing the NUP ticket to Walukagga, Abdul Kiyimba (NRM), Kangave Fred (FDC), Emmanuel Magoola (independent), Bukenya Edward (independent), Edward Lutaaya (independent), Kalungi Masmoo (JEEMA), and Ssenfuma Karooli. 

The others are female contenders Fatuma Bangi (Alliance for National Transformation), Nassolo Irene (Ecological Party of Uganda), Nalubowa Magaret (Uganda People’s Congress), and Lilian Nakate (independent). Walukagga retains the right to appeal to the Court of Appeal.