Masaka High Court upholds Nameere’s election victory despite recount irregularities
In a judgment delivered on October 21, 2026, Justice Bernard Namanya ruled that Nalubowa had failed to prove that the irregularities substantially affected the election outcome.
The High Court in Masaka has dismissed an election petition by Nalubowa Rose challenging the victory of Nameere Justine as Masaka City Woman Member of Parliament, despite finding that the recount was conducted in non-compliance with electoral law after the integrity of some election materials had been compromised.
In a judgment delivered on October 21, 2026, Justice Bernard Namanya ruled that Nalubowa had failed to prove that the irregularities substantially affected the election outcome.
The court also ordered Nalubowa to pay the costs of the petition.
Nameere was declared winner following a recount ordered by the Masaka Chief Magistrate after she challenged the initial results announced on January 16, 2026, in which Nalubowa had been declared the winner.
The recount reversed the outcome, giving Nameere 25,502 votes against Nalubowa’s 23,176, a margin of 2,326 votes.
Nalubowa subsequently petitioned the High Court, alleging that the recount was illegal, ballot boxes had been tampered with, electoral materials were missing and results from nine polling stations had been excluded.
She also challenged the use of photocopied declaration of results forms and argued that discrepancies in the vote totals undermined the credibility of the recount.
However, Justice Namanya rejected her argument that the recount was conducted outside the statutory timeframe, ruling that the Chief Magistrate had determined the recount application within the prescribed four-day period. The law did not require the entire recount exercise to be completed within those four days.
The judge also found that Nalubowa had failed to prove that the recount proceeded without the Chief Magistrate’s supervision.
The judge, however, found that the recount proceeded despite compromised electoral materials, amounting to non-compliance with electoral law. The court also held that the Electoral Commission had failed in its statutory duty to ensure the safe custody of ballot boxes and related election materials.
Justice Namanya further found that the Chief Magistrate acted contrary to the law by declaring Nameere the winner, noting that the responsibility to declare the elected candidate rested with the Returning Officer after receiving the recount certificate.
Despite these findings, the court ruled that the irregularities had not been shown to have substantially affected the outcome.
The judge noted that nine polling stations had been excluded from the recount, but the actual votes cast at those stations that could be verified from declaration of results forms and tally sheets totalled 1,353.
This was below Nameere’s winning margin of 2,326 votes. Even if all 1,353 excluded votes were added to Nalubowa’s tally, she would have had 24,529 votes, still 973 fewer than Nameere.
The court also faulted Nalubowa for failing to provide a polling-station-by-polling-station analysis demonstrating that the certified recount figures were erroneous, as well as failing to produce the complete recount record or evidence that she had made diligent but unsuccessful efforts to obtain it.
