The High Court has upheld Justine Nameere’s election as Masaka City Woman Representative to Parliament, dismissing a petition by National Unity Platform (NUP) candidate Rose Nalubowa over a disputed vote recount.
In a judgment delivered on October 21, 2026, the court ruled that the recount was lawfully conducted and that Nalubowa had not proved that the alleged electoral irregularities substantially affected the final results. The court also ordered her to pay the costs of the case.
The decision preserves Nameere’s victory following a recount that reversed the Electoral Commission’s initial declaration, which had named Nalubowa the winner of the January 15, 2026 parliamentary election.
Nalubowa was initially declared the winner on January 16 after securing 25,443 votes, compared with Nameere’s 20,324. Nameere subsequently challenged the results before the Chief Magistrate’s Court, arguing that votes from several polling stations had been omitted.
The court ordered a recount of all 314 ballot boxes, subject to their integrity. The exercise produced a different outcome, with Nameere securing 25,502 votes against Nalubowa’s 23,176.
The other candidates, Juliet Nakabuye Kakande and Sauya Nanyonga, received 6,136 and 5,921 votes, respectively. Following the recount, Nameere was declared the winner and gazetted as the duly elected representative.
Nalubowa questioned the recount’s integrity
Seeking to overturn the revised results, Nalubowa petitioned the High Court to cancel Nameere’s declaration and gazettement and have herself reinstated as the winner.
Her lawyers, Samuel Muyizzi Mulindwa and Alexander Lule, argued that the recount was affected by several procedural problems. These included the alleged use of photocopied Declaration of Results forms, compromised or unsealed ballot boxes, and the exclusion of nine polling stations with 4,091 registered voters.
The legal team also challenged the timing and supervision of the exercise, arguing that it exceeded the statutory four-day period under Section 74(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, continued beyond normal court hours and lacked a reliable audit trail.
“The recount arose from unsecured, falsified, inflated, and inconsistent materials, rendering the result unverifiable,” Nalubowa’s lawyers submitted.
They further argued that excluding the nine polling stations potentially affected the final outcome and deprived voters at those locations of representation in the tally.
Nameere and Electoral Commission defend the process
Nameere, represented by Anthony Bazira and Sam Ssekyewa, defended the recount, arguing that the application for the exercise had been filed within the legally prescribed period and that the process was conducted under judicial supervision.
Her lawyers also contended that Nalubowa’s petition amounted to an improper attempt to challenge the Chief Magistrate’s decision through a separate legal process. They maintained that any minor technical irregularities had not changed the outcome.
The Electoral Commission and the Returning Officer also defended the recount’s validity through their representatives, Geofrey Kandeebe Ntambirweki and Haruna Ssewaya.
Why the High Court rejected the petition
In its ruling, the court distinguished between the legal deadline for ordering a recount and the time required to complete the administrative tallying process. It held that the law requires the recount to be appointed within the prescribed period, provided the court acts diligently, rather than requiring every stage of the exercise to be completed within that timeframe.
The judge also rejected the argument that an open or imperfectly sealed ballot box automatically invalidates an entire recount.
“An open or imperfectly sealed ballot box does not, without cogent evidence of actual fraudulent tampering or material alteration, automatically invalidate an entire judicial recount,” the court held.
The judgment further stated that a judicial officer overseeing a recount may exclude polling units where ballot containers are compromised beyond reconciliation, protecting the integrity of votes that can still be verified.
On the central question of whether the alleged irregularities changed the outcome, the court said Nalubowa had the burden of demonstrating that the claimed non-compliance substantially affected the results.
“In the absence of proof that compromised votes were fraudulently credited to the respondent, the margin of victory established under the supervised recount reflects the lawful will of the electorate,” the judge ruled.
The court consequently upheld Nameere’s election and dismissed Nalubowa’s petition with costs, leaving the recount results intact.
For Nameere, the judgment preserves the victory that emerged from the recount. For Nalubowa, the legal challenge has ended in defeat at the High Court, with an order to cover the costs of the proceedings.