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

(2). The declaration under subsection (1) shall be in Form B or C as specified in the Seventh Schedule to this Act as the case may be.”

Form B is used when there is a winning Candidate as there was in the instant case. However, not all the seven Member of the 2nd Respondent (including the Chairman and the Deputy Chairperson) signed the declaration of results form, annexture R. 1. to Mr. Aziz Kasujja’s affidavit, filed with and in support of the 2nd Respondent’s Answer to the Petition. All, except one member, signed it.

Mrs. Miiro Nassanga Hadija is the 2nd Respondent’s Member who did not sign the results declaration Form. This may be because she was already involved with the Criminal Charge referred to earlier in this judgment.

The 2nd Respondent declared the results under its power provided by article 103(7) of the Constitution, which is repeated in section 56(1) of the Act, which I have reproduced above. The Constitution and Act 3/97 are silent on how the seal of the 2nd Respondent may be applied. Section 10 of Act 3/97 simply says:

“10. The Commission shall have a seal which shall be in such a form as the Commission may determine and shall, subject to the provisions of any law be applied in such circumstances as the Commission may determine.”

Under section 8 of Act 3/97, the quorum of the 2nd Respondent is five and its decision should, as far as possible, be by consensus. If a consensus cannot be obtained decision is by majority. By article 60(1) of the Constitution, its composition is seven Members, including the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson. Consequently a majority may consist of four Members. The declaration of results under consideration was signed, and presumably sealed, by six Members, more than the required majority. This was not contrary to the law.