The Mbale Chief Magistrate’s Court has dismissed an application by John Faith Magolo seeking a recount of votes cast in the Bungokho North Constituency parliamentary elections in Mbale District, dealing a setback to his challenge against the declared results.
Magolo, the incumbent Member of Parliament, had asked court to order a recount following his defeat in the January 2026 polls.
According to results declared by the Electoral Commission, NRM’s Shafiga Wanyenya won the race with 9,844 votes, followed by independent-leaning NRM candidate Wachagi Wazemba Hussein with 7,242 votes, while Magolo polled 5,542 votes.
In a ruling delivered after hearing preliminary objections raised by the Electoral Commission and counsel for Wanyenya, Chief Magistrate Susan Awodi held that Magolo’s application was fatally defective due to reliance on uncertified electoral documents, which the court found lacked evidential value.
The court noted that the applicant attached uncertified photocopies of Declaration of Results Forms (DRFs), tally sheets and results transmission forms in support of his application.
While acknowledging that these are public documents, the magistrate emphasised that under Sections 75 and 76 of the Evidence Act, such documents can only be relied upon if they are presented in certified form.
Counsel for the respondents argued that the failure to attach certified copies rendered the affidavits supporting the application legally insufficient.
They further submitted that election-related proceedings are governed by strict and specialised laws that require full compliance with evidentiary standards.
In response, Magolo’s lawyer, Deogracious Obedo, told court that they had applied to the Electoral Commission for certified copies on January 23, 2026, but were unaware that the documents had not been formally certified by the time the application was filed.
However, the magistrate ruled that even where an applicant seeks to rely on secondary evidence under Section 62B of the Evidence Act, the law requires a clear explanation, on affidavit, indicating where the original documents are and why they could not be produced.
The court found that Magolo failed to provide such an explanation.
“It is common knowledge that a candidate is expected to deploy agents at polling stations, and those agents are issued with original declaration of results forms,” the magistrate observed, adding that the DR forms form the basis of any arithmetic analysis of election results.
The court held that the failure to explain the absence of original or certified DR forms broke the chain of authenticity of the documents relied upon, rendering them unsuitable for consideration in a recount application.
“From this leg of the preliminary objection alone, the application cannot stand,” the magistrate ruled.
Having upheld the objection on that ground, the court declined to consider the remaining objections and dismissed the application.
The magistrate remarked that counsel for the applicant ought to have known the evidentiary requirements and taken the necessary steps, but failed to do so to the detriment of their client.
The dismissal leaves Wanyenya’s victory as Bungokho North Member of Parliament intact, unless challenged through an election petition before the High Court.
Separately, the Chief Magistrate also dismissed another vote recount application filed by Martha Khaukha in the Mbale District Woman Member of Parliament race, in which incumbent Miriam Mukhaye had been declared the winner.
The court dismissed the application on grounds that the applicant failed to properly certify service of the application on the respondents.
Khaukha’s lawyer had asked court to allow the matter to proceed ex parte, arguing that no response had been received from Mukhaye.
However, the court declined the request, citing the absence of satisfactory proof that the application had been duly served.
In her ruling, the magistrate underscored the sensitive and time-bound nature of electoral matters, noting that the applicant failed to satisfy court that service had been effected in accordance with the law.
She further pointed out that the court was operating under strict statutory timelines, with the deadline for hearing vote recount applications falling on the very day of the hearing.
The magistrate held that the court lacks jurisdiction to extend the mandatory four-day period within which vote recount applications must be heard, and on that basis, the application was dismissed.
