The High Court in Masaka has dismissed an application by Grace Nalubega seeking to amend her election petition challenging the election of Rakai Woman MP Juliet Suubi Kinyamatama.
Justice Bernard Namanya, in a ruling delivered on September 21, 2026, held that the proposed amendments would fundamentally alter the character of the original petition and were filed after the statutory deadline for presenting an election petition had expired.
Nalubega filed Election Petition No. 6 of 2026 on March 6, challenging Kinyamatama’s election. The election results had been published in the Uganda Gazette on February 6, 2026.
She subsequently filed the application to amend the petition on April 28, seeking permission to introduce additional details concerning Kinyamatama’s eligibility, identity and nomination.
Nalubega also sought leave to file a supplementary affidavit and additional witness affidavits relating to allegations of bribery and non-compliance with electoral laws.
She argued that the proposed amendments merely clarified matters already contained in the original petition and did not introduce a new cause of action.
She further argued that she had sought Kinyamatama’s nomination documents from the Electoral Commission before the election but received them only after the results had been declared.
However, Kinyamatama and the Electoral Commission opposed the application, arguing that the proposed amendments introduced fresh claims concerning her identity, academic documents, qualifications and status as a registered voter after the expiry of the statutory period for filing an election petition.
They also argued that some of the issues had either been addressed in earlier proceedings or should have been raised as pre-election complaints before the Electoral Commission.
Justice Namanya rejected the respondents’ preliminary objection that the application was defective because the Notice of Motion was not signed and sealed by the court.
The judge, however, agreed with the respondents on the substantive issue concerning the proposed amendments.
The court noted that Section 79(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act requires an election petition to be filed within 30 days after publication of the election results in the Gazette.
Justice Namanya cited previous decisions, including Wanyoto v Electoral Commission and Another, in which the High Court held that an election petition cannot be amended after expiry of the statutory period where the amendment introduces new grounds.
The judge also referred to a Supreme Court decision involving former presidential candidate Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu and the Court of Appeal decision in Ikiror Kevin v Orot Samuel, which emphasised the strict timelines governing electoral disputes.
Justice Namanya found that Nalubega’s proposed amended petition was materially different from the petition she initially filed.
According to the ruling, the proposed amendment sought to argue that Kinyamatama was not qualified for nomination because she was nominated as “ Suubi Kinyamatama Juliet K”, while the National Voters Register allegedly identifies the registered voter as “Kobusingye Juliet”.
Nalubega further sought to challenge the Electoral Commission’s decision to nominate Suubi Kinyamatama on the basis of the alleged difference in identities.
The judge held that this assertion had not been pleaded in the original petition and would therefore fundamentally alter its character.
“The time limit imposed by Parliament is mandatory and this Court has no discretion to enlarge the time,” Justice Namanya ruled.
The court also found that some of the matters Nalubega sought to introduce were already contained in the original petition.
Justice Namanya said the question of whether Suubi Kinyamatama Juliet, identified by a national identification number, was the same person as Kobusingye Juliet, whose name appeared on academic documents verified by the Uganda National Examinations Board, was already expressly pleaded in the original petition.
The judge similarly noted that the allegation of bribery was already contained in paragraph 13 of the petition and therefore did not require repetition through an amendment.
“The proposed amendments are thus unnecessary and serve no useful purpose,” the judge held.
The court further observed that allowing the amendment could interfere with the statutory requirement for election petitions to be heard and determined expeditiously.
Justice Namanya said permitting the amendment could jeopardise the court’s ability to conclude the petition within the mandatory period prescribed under the Parliamentary Elections (Interim Provisions) (Election Petitions) Rules.
The application was consequently dismissed.
However, the court ordered that the costs of the application would abide by the final determination of the main election petition.
The ruling was delivered electronically on September 21, 2026.
