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

There was allegation of bribe giving to voters by l respondent’s agents. In this type of bribery, the onus is on the petitioner to prove that the person who gave out the gift to the voter in order to induce him to vote for the 1st respondent was an agent for the respondent. Secondly, he must prove that the 1st respondent was aware and consented to the agent giving the gift or gifts to voters or that he approved of the giving of gifts to voters or that he approved what gift his agent gave to voters.

We were referred to the Digest Annotated British, Commonwealth and European Cases Volume 20, 1 982 re-issue paragraph 646 which deals with this type of relationship between a candidate and his agent and situations similar to what is before us, where agents were alleged to have given gifts to voters in order to induce them to vote for the 1 respondent.

However, the Digest Annotated British, Commonwealth & European case appears to be wider than what Section 58(6)(c) of our Act states

Paragraph 646 provides as follows:

“The relation between a candidate and a person whom he constitutes his agent is much more intimate than which subsists between an ordinary principal and agent. The closest analogy is that of a sheriff and his under sheriff and bailiffs. For, as regards the seat, the candidate is responsible for all the mis-deeds of his agent committed within the scope of his authority although they were done against his express directions and even in defiance of them. There is never any difficulty or doubt as regards this preposition. An agent is a person employed by another to act for him and on his behalf either generally or in some particular transaction. The authority may be actual or it may be implied from circumstances. It is not necessary in order to prove agency to show that the person was actually appointed by the candidate.

If a person not appointed were to assume to act in any department of service as election agent, and the candidate accepted his services as such, he would thereby ratify the agency, so that a man may become agent of another in either of two ways, by actual employment or by recognition and acceptance. The next question is, If agent, what is he agent for? If a person were appointed or accept as agent for canvassing generally and he were to bribe or treat any voters the candidate would lose the seat. But if he was employed or accepted to canvass a particular class, as if a master were asked to canvass his workmen. and he went out of his way and bribed a person who was not his workman, the candidate would not be responsible because this was not within the scope of his authority. For the same reason, if a person whom the candidate had not in any way authorised to canvass at all for him, were to take upon himself to bribe a voter, the candidate would not be responsible for the wrongful act.”

Likewise, Halsbury’s Law of England, 4th Edition paragraph 61 6 is not so restrictive like our section 58(c)(6) of our Act. It provides as follows:

“A candidate’s liability to have his election avoided under the doctrine of election agency is distinct from and wider than, his liability under the criminal or civil Law Agency. Once the agency is established, a candidate is liable to have his election avoided for corrupt or illegal practices committed by his agents even though the acts was not authorised by the candidate or was expressly forbidden. The reason for this stringent law is that candidates put forward agents to act for them; and if it were permitted that these agents should play foul, and that the candidate should have all the benefits of their foul play without being responsible for it in the way of losing his seat, great mis-chief would arise.”