The High Court has rejected a legal challenge that sought to block incumbent Joel Ssenyonyi and six other candidates from contesting the Nakawa Division West parliamentary seat, ruling that a naming error cited in the case was minor and did not affect the validity of their nominations.
In his decision, Justice Collins Acellam upheld the Electoral Commission’s handling of the nominations and cautioned against using the courts to overturn the democratic process before voters have had their say.
The case was filed by Ivan Bwowe, who argued that while he was nominated for Nakawa Division West, his seven rivals were nominated for what he described as a non-existent constituency called “Nakawa West”. On that basis, Bwowe asked the court to cancel their nominations and declare him the unopposed Member of Parliament.
Justice Acellam dismissed the argument, finding that all candidates were clearly nominated to contest in the same constituency and that the omission of the word “Division” amounted to a clerical mistake rather than a legal defect.
The judge agreed with the Electoral Commission that the error was a simple misnomer that was corrected during the nomination process, as allowed by law. He noted that all candidates, including Bwowe, signed official control forms bearing the correct constituency name, Nakawa Division West, and submitted campaign programmes indicating the same electoral area.
According to the court, these documents showed there was no confusion about where the candidates intended to stand for election, and the mistake could not reasonably be used to invalidate the nominations.
In a further blow to Bwowe’s case, Justice Acellam observed that the petitioner himself appeared on some official nomination documents as a candidate for “Nakawa West” — the same wording he claimed rendered his rivals’ nominations invalid. The court noted that Bwowe did not raise any objection about this wording at the time of nomination.
Justice Acellam strongly criticised Bwowe’s request to be declared Member of Parliament without an election, saying such an outcome would deny voters their constitutional right to choose their representative.
He stressed that courts should focus on substantive justice rather than technicalities and that anyone seeking elective office must ultimately seek legitimacy through the ballot.
The petition was dismissed in full, the Electoral Commission’s decision was upheld, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
The ruling comes at a time of increased legal disputes around nominations ahead of the 2026 general elections. Several candidates, particularly from the National Unity Platform (NUP), have challenged their exclusion from the race, accusing the Electoral Commission of bias — allegations the Commission has repeatedly denied, insisting that all decisions are made strictly in accordance with the law.
