The High Court in Mpigi has granted an application allowing substituted service in an election petition, alongside extending the time within which the application could be made.
In a ruling delivered on April 2, 2026, Deepa Verma, acting judge of the High Court, issued several key orders.
The court granted leave to enlarge time for the applicant, Hillary Kiyaga, to make the application and effect service of the election petition.
It further directed that the notice of Election Petition No. 01 of 2026 be published in the New Vision and Daily Monitor newspapers as a form of substituted service.
The court also ordered that copies of the petition and the notice of presentation be affixed at the court notice board and at the respondent’s last known residence.
Additionally, the respondent, Amelia Kyambadde, was directed to appear before Anthony Oyuko on April 13, 2026, at 8am.
Costs of the application will be determined in the main petition.
The application arose from Election Petition No. 01 of 2026, filed on March 23, 2026, by Kiyaga through his lawyers, Sebbowa & Co. Advocates.
The applicant sought court intervention after failing to personally serve the respondent within the legally prescribed timeframe.
According to affidavit evidence presented in court, efforts to locate and serve Kyambadde were unsuccessful despite multiple attempts.
A process server, Thomas Mukama, reportedly visited her known workplace and residence in Mpigi District and made phone contact, but the respondent could not be physically located and was said to have evaded service.
Justice Verma emphasized the strict timelines governing election petitions under Ugandan law, noting that petitions must ordinarily be served within seven days of filing.
However, the court observed that legal provisions allow for extension of time where special circumstances exist.
Citing precedents from higher courts on electoral disputes, the judge held that the applicant had demonstrated sufficient effort in attempting personal service.
These attempts, she ruled, constituted special circumstances warranting the court’s discretion to extend time.
On the issue of substituted service, the court found that the applicant complied with procedural requirements by filing the application promptly after failed service attempts.
Justice Verma noted that the law permits alternative service methods where personal service proves impracticable, provided reasonable efforts have been made.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s balancing act between enforcing strict electoral timelines and ensuring fairness where procedural obstacles arise.
By allowing substituted service, the court ensured that the petition proceeds without undue delay while safeguarding the respondent’s right to be notified.
The matter will now proceed to hearing, with the respondent expected to appear later this month.
