The election petition appeal rose from the
judgment and order of the High Court
nullifying the election of the appellant as
Member of Parliament for Bukoto South
Constituency.
The court considered whether considered trial
judge misdirected himself on the law relating
to the evidential burden of proof of fraud
which was specifically pleaded by the
respondent thereby reaching a wrong
conclusion that the respondent had proved
fraud on the part of the appellant. The court
referred to the principle that the duty to
produce valid Certificates to the electoral
authorities’ lies with the intending candidate
for election where the authenticity of those
certificates is questioned it can only be his
burden to show that he had the authentic
certificate. The appellant tried both by oral and
affidavit evidence to prove the authenticity of
his certificates but failed the question of
shifting the burden of proving those certificates
hence trial court could not be faulted
The court considered whether trial Judge erred
in law and in fact when he held that the
respondent had established a prima facie case
sufficient to shift the burden of proof that the
appellant had fraudulently obtained a diploma

in Public Administration and Management
from S.I.T International College, Malaysia,
onto the appellant. The court held that the
evidence adduced by the respondent when
considered in its totality was more than
sufficient to throw doubt as to the authenticity
of the appellant’s academic qualifications
thereby establishing a prima facie case. It was
incumbent on the appellant to adduce evidence
to rebut the allegations raised by the
respondent which he did not do hence ground
of appellant failed.
The court considered whether trial judge erred
in law and in fact when he held that he held
that hearsay evidence adduced by the
respondent was admissible and relied on the
evidence in support of the respondent’s case.
The court relied on the rule that where there is
irregularity in the pleadings or a departure
from the pleadings, but as long as the opposite
party had a fair notice of the case he has to
answer and does answer it and adduces
evidence accordingly, and has suffered no
injustice, the court will not allow such
irregularity or departure to frustrate the
determination of the case. The appellant had a
fair notice of the case against him namely that
he had acquired his academic certificates
particularly from S.I.T Malaysia fraudulently
as he was never admitted to that College and
the College did not in any case offer that

alleged Diploma Course  he chose not to
address it therefore ground appeal failed. In
particular court concurred that once it is proved
by evidence that a fraudulent certificate formed
the basis of an admission to an academic
institution, even when it was presented
together with other valid documents, its
contagious effect would vitiate the validity of
the other documents, and renders the admission
and the award resulting there from invalid.
 Consequently the appeal dismissed with costs
to the respondent.