The republic of uganda in the supreme court of uganda at kampala

(a) It never allowed any unauthorized persons to use ballot boxes and papers or any election materials contrary to the law as alleged.

(b) If there was unauthorized use of ballot boxes and papers, knowledge of which is denied by the 2^nd Respondent this never affected the results of the election in a substantial manner or at all”

The complaints made in this ground of the Petition are similar to those I have already dealt with in this judgment under paragraphs 3(1)(j), 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(l), which also disposes of paragraph 3(1)(m), except for the issue of the effects of the incidences of non-compliance on the result of the election. So I shall not consider 3(1) (m) separately. It would be unnecessary repetition.

Paragraph 3(1)(s) of the Petition:

“(s) That contrary to section 47 of the Act, the 2nd Respondent’s agent/servants in the course of their duties, denied the Petitioner’s Polling agents information concerning counting and tallying process.”

The 2nd Respondent answered this ground of the Petition as follows:

“17. In reply to paragraphs 3(1)(s) and (t) of the Petition, the 2nd Respondent avers that it freely allowed Polling agents of all candidates access to information concerning the counting and tallying process and there was no forced absence of the Petitioner’s agents as alleged.”

The complaints raised in this ground of the Petition are similar to those in paragraphs 3(1 )(g) and (p) of the Petition, which I have already dealt with in this judgment, save for the issue of the effect of those paragraphs on the result of the election, which I shall consider later in this judgment. It would therefore, be unnecessary repetition to consider paragraph 3(l)(s) separately.

Paragraph 3(1) (t) of the Petition:

“(t) Contrary to section 47 of the Act the 2nd Respondent’s agents/servants allowed the voting and carried out the counting and tallying of votes in the forced absence of the Petitioner’s agents whose duty was to safeguard the Petitioner’s interests by observing the voting, counting and tallying process and ascertain the results.”

The 2nd Respondent made one reply to this and ground 3(1) (s) of the Petition. The reply has been reproduced underground 3(1) (s) above.

This ground of the Petition makes complaints similar to those in ground 3(1) (g) and (p), which I have already considered in this judgment, except the effect of the non — compliance on the results of the election, which I shall deal with later in the judgment.

Paragraph 3(1) (u) of the Petition:

“(u) That contrary to section 56(2) of the Act, the 2nd Respondent declared the results of the Presidential Election when all Electoral Commissioners had not signed the Declaration Form B.”

The 2nd Respondent’s Answer to the Petition replied to this ground of the Petition as follows:

“18. In reply to paragraph 3(u) of the Petition, the 2nd Respondent avers that the results of the Presidential election were declared in compliance with the law and in particular s. 56(2) of the Presidential Elections Act.”

Ascertainment, publication and declaration of the Presidential Election results are governed by section 56 of the Act.

“56(1). The Commission shall ascertain, publish and declare each in writing under its seal, the results of the Presidential Election within forty-eight hours from the close of polling.