The High Court in Patong has upheld the election of Christopher Komakech as Member of Parliament for Aruu County in Pader District, dismissing an election petition filed by his challenger, Odonga Otto, over alleged electoral irregularities, failure to conduct a mandatory vote recount and mishandling of ballot boxes.
In a judgment delivered electronically on November 5, 2026, Acting High Court Judge Justice Fatuma Nanziri Bwanika ruled that Odonga had failed to prove that the alleged irregularities substantially affected the outcome of the January 2026 parliamentary election.
The court consequently declined to nullify Komakech’s election or order a fresh election, finding that the Electoral Commission’s Returning Officer had lawfully declared him the winner after the final tally.
The petition arose from the closely contested Aruu County parliamentary election in which Komakech was declared the winner with a margin of 26 votes over Odonga.
Odonga had challenged the outcome, arguing that the election was conducted in violation of the Constitution, the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Electoral Commission Act, thereby undermining the integrity of the results.
One of his major complaints was that the Returning Officer, Gimei Eric, had refused to conduct a mandatory recount despite receiving a written request before declaring Komakech the winner.
Odonga told court that he had personally raised the matter during the tallying exercise and subsequently submitted a written request for a recount. He also relied on the testimony of his supporter, Francis Legkwo, who claimed to have delivered the letter to the Returning Officer before the declaration of results.
However, the Electoral Commission and Komakech maintained that the request was only served after the declaration of the winner, when the Returning Officer had already exercised his mandate and could no longer conduct a recount under Section 73 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
In resolving the dispute, Justice Bwanika examined the letter requesting the recount and the evidence of the Returning Officer, Odonga and Legkwo.
The judge noted that the copy of the letter attached to Odonga’s affidavit bore a stamp indicating receipt on January 16, 2026, at 11:30pm. It also contained a handwritten acknowledgement by the Returning Officer indicating that the letter had been received at 1:30pm, after Komakech had been declared the winner at 12:48pm.
The court further observed that neither Odonga nor Legkwo had initially challenged the handwritten acknowledgement or accused the Returning Officer of falsely recording the time of receipt.
Justice Bwanika also found material contradictions between the accounts given by Odonga and Legkwo regarding who delivered the letter, who stood before the Returning Officer and what transpired at the tally centre.
While Odonga claimed that he personally delivered the letter and verbally requested a recount, Legkwo stated that he was the one who presented the letter and stood before the Returning Officer for approximately 30 minutes.
The judge found that their accounts were inconsistent despite both witnesses claiming to have been at the tally centre during the same events.
The Returning Officer, meanwhile, maintained that he received the letter at 1:30pm, after declaring Komakech the winner at 12:48pm. His account was supported by the official Return of Transmission of Results Form, which the court found had not been challenged by the petitioner.
The judge consequently ruled that the Returning Officer had already become functus officio, meaning he had exhausted his authority to conduct the recount after declaring the winner.
According to the court, Section 73 of the Parliamentary Elections Act requires a mandatory recount where the winning margin is fewer than 50 votes, provided a written request is made after the official addition of votes but before the declaration of the winning candidate.
Justice Bwanika explained that once the winner had been declared, the Returning Officer could no longer conduct the recount under that provision. The appropriate remedy available to an aggrieved candidate was to apply to the Chief Magistrate’s Court under Section 74 of the Act.
The judge therefore found no legal basis for faulting the Returning Officer for declining to conduct the recount.
The court also rejected a video recording that Odonga had presented in support of his account of events at the tally centre.
The recording had been attached to an affidavit in rejoinder sworn by Legkwo. However, the respondents objected to its admissibility, arguing that it had not been properly authenticated in accordance with the Electronic Transactions Act.
Although Justice Bwanika ruled that the video was not entirely new evidence because it related to events already mentioned in the petition, she found that the petitioner had failed to establish the necessary foundation for its admission.
The judge noted that Legkwo had not explained who recorded the video, the device used, the circumstances under which it was recorded, how it was transferred to the compact disc or how it had been stored before being presented to court.
The recording was also not accompanied by a proper transcription of its contents.
The court held that the responsibility to establish the authenticity and integrity of electronic evidence rested with the party seeking to rely on it, and not the opposing party.
It consequently declared the video inadmissible and ordered that it be expunged from the court record, although the remaining averments in Legkwo’s affidavit were retained for consideration.
Another ground of the petition concerned allegations that presiding officers had wrongly invalidated votes cast in favour of Odonga at several polling stations.
Odonga identified various polling stations where he claimed that valid votes had been declared invalid, including Layet Hellen Compound, Kineni Primary School, Bar Dyang Primary School, Tee Atika, Christ Church Primary School, Acholi Pii Mango Tree, Aringa Primary School and Pader Labongo Primary School.
He argued that the wrongful invalidation of the votes had disadvantaged him, particularly given the narrow winning margin.
The court established that a total of 407 votes had been declared invalid during the election. However, Justice Bwanika found that the Declaration of Results Forms presented in court did not indicate why the votes had been invalidated or which candidate they had favoured.
The judge noted that Odonga had failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating that the disputed votes had been cast in his favour and were wrongly rejected.
The court also observed that Odonga’s polling agents had signed the Declaration of Results Forms at the contested polling stations without registering complaints regarding the alleged wrongful invalidation of votes.
Justice Bwanika held that candidates are ordinarily bound by the actions of their appointed polling agents, who are responsible for protecting their interests and reporting irregularities during voting and counting.
The judge further found that some of the witnesses presented by Odonga were not his appointed polling agents at the affected polling stations, while others had relied on information they had received from unidentified people.
The court therefore concluded that the petitioner had failed to provide credible evidence to establish that the allegedly invalidated votes belonged to him or that their exclusion affected the final result.
On the alleged mishandling of election materials, however, the court acknowledged that there had been lapses in the safe custody of ballot boxes.
Odonga had complained that several ballot boxes were found with broken seals and weak safety locks when the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Pader attempted to conduct a recount following an order issued on January 20, 2026.
The affected ballot boxes included those from Acoli Pii Mango Tree, Kilak Dongnam East, Bus Park, Kilak Dongnam West, Rene Primary School, Lwala and Kineni polling stations.
The discovery of the compromised seals and locks led to the discontinuation of the recount exercise, frustrating Odonga’s attempt to have the votes recounted.
Justice Bwanika agreed that Section 71 of the Parliamentary Elections Act places a mandatory responsibility on the Electoral Commission to keep election materials safely until the settlement of disputes arising from an election.
The judge noted that the failure to secure ballot boxes, if established, would constitute non-compliance with the electoral law.
However, the court found that it had not been established when the seals were broken or the safety locks weakened, whether while the ballot boxes were still in the Electoral Commission’s custody or during transportation by police to the Chief Magistrate’s Court.
More importantly, the judge ruled that Odonga had not demonstrated how the compromised ballot boxes substantially affected the election results.
The court noted that the affected polling stations were not among those where Odonga had specifically complained about the wrongful invalidation of votes. Neither had he demonstrated that his agents had protested against the results or been forced to sign the Declaration of Results Forms.
Justice Bwanika also rejected Odonga’s allegation that the Electoral Commission had ignored an earlier warning about possible electoral malpractice involving six parish supervisors who allegedly attended a meeting at Komakech’s home during the campaign period.
The judge examined a letter dated November 30, 2025, which Odonga had presented as evidence that he had alerted the Returning Officer about the alleged meeting.
However, the court found that the copy of the letter was incomplete, lacked a signature page and did not bear any acknowledgement or stamp showing that it had been received by the Electoral Commission or the Returning Officer.
The petitioner also failed to present evidence establishing that the named parish supervisors had interfered with the election or that the appointed presiding officers were biased in favour of Komakech.
In assessing whether the alleged irregularities affected the election outcome, Justice Bwanika emphasised that a petitioner challenging an election must prove not only that electoral laws were breached but also that the violations substantially affected the result.
The judge explained that courts may apply both quantitative and qualitative approaches when assessing the effect of electoral irregularities, depending on the circumstances and evidence presented.
She nevertheless cautioned that the mere existence of irregularities or a narrow winning margin does not automatically justify nullifying an election.
The judge said the 26-vote difference between Komakech and Odonga was not, in itself, evidence that the election result had been substantially affected.
She added that the law does not prescribe a minimum winning margin for a candidate to be declared elected, provided the candidate obtains the highest number of valid votes after tallying.
In another preliminary objection, the court struck out the Returning Officer as a respondent, ruling that the office does not have an independent corporate legal existence or capacity to be sued.
Justice Bwanika held that the Electoral Commission was the proper party to answer for acts or omissions committed by its employees in the conduct of elections, unless an individual officer was specifically accused of acting in bad faith or outside the scope of official duties.
The judge found that Odonga had not specifically pleaded bad faith or malice against the Returning Officer, making the petition incompetent against him in his official capacity.
However, the court proceeded to determine the petition against the Electoral Commission and Komakech, who were considered proper parties.
The judge ultimately concluded that Odonga’s allegations were largely based on assumptions, speculation and insufficient evidence, adding that courts cannot rely on unsubstantiated claims to overturn an election.
She ruled that the petitioner had failed to prove non-compliance of such a magnitude as would substantially affect the election results.
Consequently, the court declined all the declarations and orders sought, upheld Komakech’s election as the duly elected Member of Parliament for Aruu County and dismissed the petition.
On costs, Justice Bwanika declined to award costs to the Electoral Commission despite its success, citing the established lapses in the safe custody of ballot boxes.
The court also declined to award costs to the Returning Officer because the office lacked independent legal existence and had been improperly joined to the proceedings.
However, Komakech was awarded costs of the petition after successfully defending his election.
The judgment was delivered by Acting High Court Judge Justice Fatuma Nanziri Bwanika on November 5, 2026.
