Court Expunges 97 Affidavits in Rubongoya-Kabanda Election Petition

The High Court in Kampala has struck out and expunged 97 affidavits filed by David Lewis Rubongoya in his election petition challenging the election of Kampala Central Division Member of Parliament Minsa Kabanda. 

Justice Flavia Nabakooza ruled on Wednesday that the affidavits, which were filed after the election petition, were introduced irregularly without leave of court and therefore cannot remain on the court record.

The ruling followed the consolidation of two applications filed by Kabanda and the Electoral Commission seeking, among other orders, the removal of the affidavits and the striking out of some of the complaints raised in Rubongoya’s petition. 

Rubongoya filed Election Petition No. 10 of 2026 on March 30, challenging the January 15 parliamentary election in which the Electoral Commission declared Kabanda the winner.

Kabanda polled 22,280 votes against Rubongoya’s 18,211, giving her a margin of 4,069 votes. Rubongoya disputes the result, alleging that more than 1,335 votes were improperly added in Kabanda Nabbengo’s favour in areas including Nakivubo, Mengo, Kisenyi, Kamwokya II, Old Kampala and Kololo III. The petition also raises complaints about Kabanda’s nomination, academic qualifications and differences in her names, as well as the location of some polling stations in areas allegedly restricted by security arrangements.

Kabanda and the Electoral Commission, through their lawyer Steven Kalali, argued that the complaints concerning nomination, academic qualifications, names and the location of polling stations were pre-election matters that should have been raised before polling day through the statutory dispute-resolution mechanisms. 

However, Justice Nabakooza rejected the argument that the complaints concerning Kabanda’s nomination, academic qualifications and differences in her names should be struck out as pre-election matters. 

The judge noted that Rubongoya had sought certified copies of Kabanda’s nomination and academic documents before the election but only obtained them on February 26, 2026, more than a month after the January 15 election.

Justice Nabakooza relied on previous Court of Appeal decisions which generally require nomination disputes to be raised before an election where the complainant knew, or could reasonably have known, about the alleged defects. She found, however, that in this case the documents relied upon by Rubongoya were obtained after the election, making it impractical for him to pursue the complaints through the pre-election process.

The judge therefore held that the complaints relating to Kabanda’s nomination, academic qualifications and differences in her names were not barred as pre-election matters and could remain in the election petition. She struck out a separate complaint concerning 23 polling stations allegedly located in restricted security areas in Nakasero II and Kololo II.

Rubongoya, through his lawyers led by Jude Byamukama, had alleged that the polling stations were situated in restricted environments where the presence of military personnel made it difficult for voters and candidates’ agents to freely participate in the electoral process. Justice Nabakooza held that the location and establishment of polling stations was a pre-election administrative matter that could have been challenged before polling day.

She noted that the Electoral Commission had gazetted Nakasero II and Kololo II as electoral areas and that the voter register showing the polling stations had been issued before the election. The judge found that Rubongoya was aware of the arrangements but did not lodge a complaint with the Electoral Commission before January 15, 2026. She cited a Court of Appeal decision holding that disputes concerning the establishment and location of polling stations should first be handled through the Electoral Commission’s statutory complaint mechanism, with an appeal to the High Court where applicable.

Justice Nabakooza consequently held that the High Court did not have original jurisdiction to determine the complaint and ordered that it be struck out. The court also considered the 97 affidavits filed by Rubongoya after the election petition. Rubongoya’s lawyers argued that the affidavits contained evidence collected from voters, polling agents and election officials across Kampala Central and did not introduce new grounds or new remedies.

They further argued that the affidavits had been filed before the scheduling conference and therefore did not require leave of court.

Justice Nabakooza disagreed.

She held that Rule 4(8) of the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) Election Petitions Rules requires an election petition to be accompanied by an affidavit setting out the facts on which the petition is based, together with a list of documents on which the petitioner intends to rely. The judge noted that Rubongoya filed the petition on March 30, 2026, together with affidavits in support, while the disputed affidavits were filed later in June and August.

She relied on a Court of Appeal decision in Mutembuli versus Nagwomu and Another, which treated affidavits filed after an election petition as supplementary affidavits requiring leave of court. Justice Nabakooza ruled that the affidavits filed after the petition were supplementary in nature and had been introduced without the requisite leave.

She consequently declared them irregularly filed and bad in law and ordered that the 97 affidavits and their attachments be struck out and expunged from the court record. The judge further ruled that the pleadings in Election Petition No. 10 of 2026 are closed and directed that the petition proceed on the pleadings properly on record, subject to the orders made in the ruling.

The matter will now proceed to a scheduling conference before the substantive election petition is heard. The consolidated applications filed by Kabanda and the Electoral Commission therefore succeeded in part. While the complaint concerning the polling stations in Nakasero II and Kololo II has been removed from the petition, the challenges concerning Kabanda’s nomination, academic qualifications and differences in her names remain before the court.

Justice Nabakooza ordered that costs shall be in the cause. The ruling does not determine the substantive election petition or whether Kabanda was validly elected. The remaining grounds, including Rubongoya’s challenge to the election result, will be considered during the subsequent hearing.