MPIGI
The High Court in Mpigi has dismissed an application by Mawokota County North parliamentary election petitioner Kiyaga Hillary Innocent seeking to compel his rival, Kyambadde Amelia Anne, to produce copies of declaration of results forms from 37 polling stations.
Justice Jamson Karemani K. dismissed the application on Wednesday, ruling that Kiyaga had not proved that Kyambadde was in possession of the disputed forms and that seeking the documents from her amounted to a fishing expedition.
The application, Election Petition Application No. 03 of 2026, arose from Election Petition No. 01 of 2026 in which Kiyaga is challenging Kyambadde’s election as the directly elected Member of Parliament for Mawokota County North Constituency.
Kyambadde was declared winner of the January 15, 2026 election with 27,075 votes against Kiyaga’s 24,801, giving her a margin of 2,274 votes.
Kiyaga asked court to order Kyambadde to produce, within two days or another period set by court, the declaration of results forms given to her polling agents at 37 specified polling stations.
He also wanted the forms filed with the court for use and comparison during the hearing of the main election petition. For any forms Kyambadde could not produce, Kiyaga wanted her to explain by affidavit whether the documents had ever been in her possession and, if they were no longer available, when she parted with them and what had happened to them.
Kiyaga argued that the forms were important because his petition raises allegations that the results forms used by the Electoral Commission to declare the winner had been altered.
According to his application, there were two sets of declaration of results forms: certified forms used by the returning officer to declare the results, which he alleged contained visible alterations, and forms allegedly given to his agents at the close of counting which he said did not contain the same alterations.
He argued that comparing the forms in his possession with those allegedly held by Kyambadde would assist court in determining the authenticity of the documents and the alleged alteration of results.
Kiyaga also claimed that none of Kyambadde’s 18 polling agents had exhibited copies of the forms allegedly given to them at the polling stations. Instead, he said, they had exhibited certified copies obtained from the Electoral Commission on April 2, 2026.
Kyambadde opposed the application, arguing that it was a fishing expedition and an abuse of court process.
Through her lawyers, she argued that the application was not contemplated under the law governing election petitions and that Kiyaga had not listed or referred to the documents he sought in his petition or supporting affidavit.
She further argued that the documents were already in Kiyaga’s possession because copies had been attached and served on him through her answer to the petition.
Kyambadde also contended that Kiyaga was using the application to gather evidence and amend his petition “through the back door”, despite having had seven months from the declaration of results to gather evidence for his case.
The respondent further told court that the documents had previously been the subject of another application, HCMA No. 2 of 2026, which had been dismissed by the same court on September 16, 2026.
Kiyaga was represented by Medard Lubega Ssegona, Ssebowa Francis, Samola Machel and Kalamu Lawrence, while Kyambadde was represented by Bazira Anthony and Bantu Hazeal. Both sides filed written submissions which Justice Karemani considered before delivering the ruling.
In determining the application, the judge noted that Order 10 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules gives court power to order production of documents in a party’s possession or power where they relate to a matter in dispute.
However, Justice Karemani said an application for production and inspection must satisfy several conditions, including proof that the documents are in the possession of the respondent, that they are relevant and material, that they are not privileged or protected by law, that the application is not a fishing expedition and that attempts had first been made to obtain the documents voluntarily.
On possession, the judge found that although Section 69(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Elections Act requires a presiding officer to give a copy of the declaration of results form to each candidate’s polling agent, the law does not require the agent to subsequently deliver that copy to the candidate.
Justice Karemani noted that the Electoral Commission is the body mandatorily required under Section 71 of the Parliamentary Elections Act to possess and keep election materials until electoral disputes are resolved.
He therefore ruled that where a party states that it does not possess a particular document, that party cannot be compelled to produce it without proof establishing that the document is actually in its possession.
The judge, however, agreed with Kiyaga on the relevance and materiality of the requested forms, finding that the documents could potentially assist in resolving questions concerning the alleged alterations to the election results. He also found that the documents were not privileged or otherwise protected by law.
On whether Kiyaga had first attempted to obtain the documents voluntarily, the court noted that his lawyers had written to Kyambadde seeking the forms but her lawyers declined to provide them.
However, Justice Karemani found that the request had been made only after the main petition had already come up for scheduling. The petition and response had been filed in March 2026, while the application for discovery was filed in September, more than five months later.
The judge described the delay as inordinate, noting that election petitions are required to be handled expeditiously because of their urgent nature.
The court ultimately found that the application amounted to a fishing expedition.
Justice Karemani noted that the forms Kiyaga was seeking had already been availed to him through the pleadings and that Kyambadde had told court that the copies in her possession were certified forms obtained from the Electoral Commission.
The judge said Kiyaga had not demonstrated that Kyambadde possessed another set of forms different from those already available to him. Seeking the same information from Kyambadde, whose alleged source was the Electoral Commission, was therefore considered an unnecessary use of court time.
Justice Karemani consequently dismissed the application for lack of merit.
The court ordered that each party bears its own costs of the application.
