The Mubende High Court is set to deliver its ruling on Saturday, February 14, 2026, regarding an application seeking a review of the Buwekula South parliamentary vote recount.
The recount, conducted by the Mubende Chief Magistrate’s Court, overturned the initial victory of Fred Tumwesigye, who had earlier been declared winner by the Electoral Commission.
The court subsequently declared NRM candidate Dedan Mubangizi as the winner. Following this, Tumwesigye filed an application before the High Court seeking a review of the recount proceedings overseen by Chief Magistrate Noah Ssajjabbi.
The application was heard before Justice Bonny Isaac Teko at the Mubende High Court.
Through his lawyer, Paul Ssebunya, Tumwesigye argued that the Chief Magistrate did not follow proper legal procedures in handling the recount application filed by Mubangizi.
“This is an application for revision brought by Mr. Fred Tumwesigye, and he is seeking the following orders, My Lord: that this Honourable Court be pleased to call for and examine the record of proceedings in Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of 2026 before the Chief Magistrate’s Court of Mubende,” Ssebunya submitted.
“The second order sought, My Lord, is that this Honourable Court be pleased to revise, set aside, or quash the ruling granting or sanctioning the vote recount, the recount proceedings conducted pursuant to that ruling, and any findings and conclusions arising from it.”
Ssebunya said the application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Tumwesigye, consisting of sixteen paragraphs challenging both the recount application and the process conducted. He highlighted paragraph five, which he said shows there was no factual basis for a recount, contrary to Section 74 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, Cap 177.
“The learned Chief Magistrate acted illegally and irregularly. We have attached a copy of the ruling, My Lord. In that ruling, the Chief Magistrate concedes that the applicant, who is now the first respondent, had not attached any evidence to support the application for a recount,” Ssebunya argued.
He added that the magistrate had erroneously relied on a single declaration of results form containing a clerical error to order a recount, without corroborative evidence, committing a material irregularity.
“For these reasons, this Honourable Court is respectfully urged to exercise its revisionary jurisdiction and revise, quash, and set aside the ruling, the recount proceedings, and all consequential findings arising from Miscellaneous Cause No. 2 of 2026,” Ssebunya concluded.
Mubangizi’s lawyer, Caleb Alaka, opposed the application, saying they had filed a replying affidavit and arguing that the conditions for a revisional order under Section 83 of the Civil Procedure Act were not met.
“That is not the law. The court counts ballot papers and declares the winner; it does not count DR forms. The Chief Magistrate counted ballot papers in secured ballot boxes," Alaka said.
"Was there any single ballot box found unsealed? The answer is a resounding no. All 89 ballot boxes were securely sealed. Even the ballot box complained of was sealed,” Alaka added, urging the court to dismiss the application with costs.
Justice Teko appreciated both lawyers for their professionalism and said he would deliver the ruling before Saturday, February 14, 2026.
“Pray for me so that on Saturday I have the ruling ready. It will be delivered by email. May the winner win,” Justice Teko said.