The Supreme Court of Uganda has closed the Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2026 together with Presidential Election Application No. 1 of 2026, thereby bringing the proceedings to an end. The petition challenging the January 15, 2026 presidential election was filed by Robert Kasibante, a former presidential candidate and leader of the National Peasants […]
The Supreme Court of Uganda has closed the Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2026 together with Presidential Election Application No. 1 of 2026, thereby bringing the proceedings to an end.
The petition challenging the January 15, 2026 presidential election was filed by Robert Kasibante, a former presidential candidate and leader of the National Peasants Party (NPP). Kasibante’s petition sought to nullify the re‑election of President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni on several grounds, arguing that the election was not free, fair, or conducted according to law.
His main claims included allegations that: The electoral process was marred by irregularities that affected the outcome. There were procedural failures, such as the failure to gazette thousands of polling stations in advance, denying candidates the opportunity to deploy agents.
The petition was heard by a panel of nine Supreme Court justices, led by Chief Justice Dr. Flavian Zeija, with Justices Percy Night Tuhaise, Mike Chibita, Elizabeth Musoke, Stephen Musota, Christopher Madrama, Catherine Bamugemereire, Monica Mugenyi, and Muzamiru Kibedi also on the bench.
In a detailed ruling, the Court noted the gravity of instituting a presidential election petition, describing it as “a very serious matter” that must not be approached casually.
“It relates to the highest office in this land,” the Court observed,
It also noted that the presidential constituency encompasses the entire country, which in the recently concluded election had more than 50,000 polling stations.
The Court explained that gathering evidence from such a vast constituency, evaluating it, and presenting it within the strict constitutional timeframe of 15 days carries significant logistical and organizational implications. These consequences, the justices stated, are foreseeable and form part of the inherent risks assumed when a petitioner decides to challenge a presidential election.
“The cost of gathering evidence for successfully prosecuting a presidential election petition is part and parcel of the consequences of the decision to institute such a petition,” the Court stated.
In considering the application for withdrawal, the Court took note of the applicant’s admission that the evidence so far presented was insufficient to prove the case. Since the respondents did not object to the withdrawal, the Court found no useful purpose in refusing leave.
Accordingly, both the petition and the related application were formally discontinued.
The Court then addressed the legal implications of the withdrawal under Section 61(4) of the Presidential Elections Act.
It held that in the absence of a valid and subsisting challenge, the candidate earlier declared winner by the Electoral Commission stands unchallenged and is conclusively taken to be the duly elected President of the Republic of Uganda.
The justices further noted that this petition marks the fifth presidential election petition filed before the Court since the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution. They observed that sufficient local jurisprudence and experience now exist to guide any presidential candidate contemplating such litigation.
“The decision to challenge the results of a Presidential election is an extremely important decision which ought not to be taken casually,” the Court cautioned.
Determination on costs, a contested issue before the court, the respondents argued that they had incurred substantial costs defending what they described as an unmeritorious case and prayed that the petitioner be ordered to reimburse them. The applicant, on the other hand, sought relief from liability for costs.
Section 63(4) of the Presidential Elections Act provides that upon withdrawal of a petition, the petitioner “shall be liable” to pay the respondent’s costs. A similar provision appears in Rule 20(7) of the Presidential Election Petition Rules.
The Court considered whether the phrase “shall be liable” imposes a mandatory obligation in every case.
Relying on its earlier decision in the 2021 petition involving Kyagulanyi v Attorney General and Others, the justices reaffirmed that the provision is directory rather than mandatory, meaning the Court retains discretion in determining costs.
The Court also drew guidance from comparative jurisprudence, including Thompson-Dudley v Atkinson, where identical statutory language was interpreted as not divesting courts of discretionary power.
Further reference was made to Kenyan presidential election jurisprudence under the Constitution of Kenya, noting that the general trend in that jurisdiction has been to exercise discretion in favour of public interest and to order each party to bear its own costs, even in high-profile cases such as Raila Odinga v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission.
Having balanced the need to reimburse successful parties against the broader public interest in safeguarding access to justice and preventing frivolous litigation, the Supreme Court says it has exercised its discretion judiciously.
The Court ordered that each party shall bear its own costs.
The ruling provides further clarification on the legal consequences of withdrawing a presidential election petition and reinforces the Court’s position that such proceedings demand careful preparation, substantial evidence, and serious deliberation before being instituted.
