The High Court in Tororo has upheld the election of Shyam Jay Tanna as Member of Parliament for Tororo Municipality, dismissing a petition filed by his rival, Apollo Yeri Ofwono, who had challenged the January 2026 election over allegations of bribery, illegal donations, violence, intimidation and other electoral irregularities.
In a judgment delivered electronically on Friday, October 30, 2026, Justice Rosemary N. Bareebe ruled that Ofwono, the National Resistance Movement (NRM) candidate, had failed to prove any of the grounds required under Section 80(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act to warrant annulment of the election.
The judge consequently upheld Tanna’s victory and ordered Ofwono to pay the taxed costs of both respondents, Tanna and the Electoral Commission.
The Electoral Commission had declared Tanna, who contested as an independent candidate, winner with 5,781 votes against Ofwono’s 4,829, giving him a majority of 952 votes. Ochom Patrick Oguta polled 1,562 votes, Okware Edward 442, Owor Valentine 440, Nandala Annet Kimbowa 206 and Odaka Asuman Marijan 10 votes.
The results were published in the Uganda Gazette on March 2, 2026, while Ofwono filed his petition on April 1, 2026.
Ofwono asked the court to nullify Tanna’s election and declare him the duly elected MP, arguing that his rival had personally or through agents engaged in electoral offences and illegal practices that undermined the credibility of the election.
Among the allegations were the distribution of Christmas packages containing food items and Shs10,000 at Agururu B1, a Shs1 million contribution at the burial of Owino Stephen in Mudakori Village, alleged donations of Shs150,000 and plastic chairs to Nyangole Church, and a Shs2 million payment to Agururu B Parish Community Group.
He also accused Tanna’s agents of distributing Shs20,000 as transport facilitation at a campaign gathering, campaigning beyond the authorised hours and being involved in violence and intimidation, particularly at Chamwinula polling location on election day.
However, Justice Bareebe found that although some incidents, including the distribution of campaign-branded packages and Tanna’s funeral contribution, were established, the evidence did not sufficiently connect the alleged conduct to the candidate or demonstrate that it amounted to bribery or prohibited donations.
On the alleged distribution of Christmas packages at Agururu B1, the petitioner claimed that Tanna’s wife, sister, nephew and other relatives or agents distributed branded bags containing sugar, cooking oil, salt, soap and baking flour, alongside Shs10,000.
The judge noted that three witnesses gave accounts of the distribution, but their affidavits were strikingly similar in language, structure and sequence, raising questions about the independence of their recollections.
The court also found that the petitioner had failed to establish the identities of the people captured distributing the packages or prove that they were acting on Tanna’s instructions or with his knowledge, consent or approval.
Justice Bareebe observed that the presence of campaign branding on the bags supported an inference that the distribution promoted Tanna’s candidature but was insufficient to establish the distributors’ identities, agency or authorisation.
She further rejected reliance on electronic material attributed to NBS Television because the witness expected to authenticate it failed to attend court despite being summoned twice.
On the Shs1 million contribution at the burial of Owino Stephen, the judge accepted that Tanna attended the funeral and gave the money to the bereaved family.
However, she found that the evidence did not establish that the contribution was intended to influence voters or was conditional upon electoral support.
The court examined two recordings of the funeral, including a 47-second clip produced by the petitioner and a fuller recording lasting approximately four minutes and 56 seconds, which was tendered by Tanna.
Justice Bareebe noted that the shorter recording was an extract from the fuller version, with a difference of four minutes and nine seconds.
She observed that the longer recording showed Tanna discussing his relationship with the deceased’s family, addressing issues including unemployment, roads and electricity, asking for political support and distinguishing the burial from a campaign meeting he intended to hold later.
Although the judge acknowledged that Tanna’s remarks amounted to political advocacy, she ruled that political campaigning and customary funeral contributions could coexist without necessarily making the contribution an electoral inducement.
“The evidence proves that political advocacy accompanied a funeral contribution, but not that the contribution was the consideration or inducement for the support requested,” Justice Bareebe ruled.
The judge also dismissed allegations that Tanna donated Shs150,000 and plastic chairs to Nyangole Church in December 2025.
She noted that although witnesses gave conflicting accounts, the petitioner failed to produce church financial records, receipts, minutes, acknowledgements or evidence from the officials responsible for receiving church property to establish the alleged donations.
Similarly, the court found insufficient evidence to prove that Tanna personally paid Shs2 million to Agururu B Parish Community Group on January 11, 2026.
Justice Bareebe observed that the document presented as an acknowledgement of the payment did not identify the community group, name the recipient or bear a corresponding signature.
The petitioner also failed to produce bank records, deposit slips, cashbooks, receipts or meeting minutes to demonstrate that the money had been received by the group.
The judge said that although some of Tanna’s witnesses gave evasive answers and failed to provide convincing explanations on certain matters, weaknesses in the respondents’ defence could not replace the petitioner’s obligation to prove his allegations.
Turning to the violence reported at Chamwinula on polling day, Justice Bareebe acknowledged that a confrontation involving supporters associated with the rival candidates occurred at or near Chamwinula Primary School.
However, she found that the evidence did not establish who initiated the violence, whether it was organised by either candidate or whether voters were prevented from exercising their right to vote.
The petitioner relied on witness affidavits, video recordings, photographs, police reports and forensic examinations to demonstrate that violence and intimidation had disrupted the electoral process.
But the judge observed that the recordings had shortcomings regarding their source, transfer history, custody and authentication. Some also lacked sufficient features to establish that they were captured at an actual polling station.
The court further noted that the recordings did not show polling being suspended, ballot boxes being interfered with, voters being turned away or anyone being prevented from voting.
The presiding officers at Chamwinula A-M and Chamwinula N-Z maintained that voting proceeded normally and that every person who presented themselves was allowed to vote.
The declaration of results forms showed that polling was completed at both stations, with Tanna obtaining 126 votes against Ofwono’s 98 at Chamwinula A-M, and 131 against 106 at Chamwinula N-Z.
Justice Bareebe also noted that the petitioner had not established that complaints concerning the incident were presented to the respective presiding officers or the Returning Officer for immediate intervention.
Although the Electoral Commission had a constitutional obligation to ensure that voters exercised their rights freely and without intimidation, the judge said the petitioner had failed to identify the specific statutory duty that officials neglected, when they became aware of the incident and what intervention they failed to undertake.
“The evidence establishes disorder, but not that the election at Chamwinula was conducted in non-compliance with the governing law,” she ruled.
The court also rejected allegations that Tanna campaigned beyond 6pm and that his agents distributed Shs20,000 as transport facilitation.
Justice Bareebe said the petitioner had not established the precise time of the alleged gathering, the applicable campaign programme, the identities of those who distributed or received the money, or the connection between the alleged payments and Tanna.
In considering whether the alleged irregularities substantially affected the election results, the judge said the petitioner had not demonstrated how many voters were prevented from voting or how the alleged misconduct could have altered the declared 952-vote margin.
She noted that the Chamwinula disturbance was confined to one polling location comprising two polling stations, with no credible evidence of similar incidents elsewhere in the constituency.
The court further found no evidence of systematic violence, widespread intimidation, voter disenfranchisement, official partiality, interference with ballot materials or falsification of results.
Justice Bareebe emphasised that election annulment requires proof that established irregularities substantially affected the outcome, either numerically or through serious breaches that undermine the integrity of the electoral process.
She added that allegations which individually remained unproved could not acquire evidential strength merely through repetition or cumulative consideration.
The judge also rejected Ofwono’s request to be declared the duly elected MP, noting that no recount, scrutiny or corrected constituency tally had established that he obtained the highest number of valid votes.
In the final orders, the court dismissed the petition, upheld Tanna’s election and return as the directly elected MP for Tororo Municipality, and directed Ofwono to pay the taxed costs of Tanna and the Electoral Commission.
The court also declined to issue a certificate for multiple counsel, ruling that the proceedings had not been shown to involve exceptional complexity warranting certification for additional legal fees.
The parties were informed of their right to appeal under Section 85 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.
