The appellant appealed against the decision of
the high court of fort portal whereby his
petition was dismissed against the respondents.
The appellant sought orders of annulment or
conduct of fresh elections. The 1 st respondents
filed a cross-appeal.
The court considered whether or not the
learned trial judge mad a right decision in is
conclusions that the 1 st respondent had
acquired necessary qualifications to be
nominated and elected member of parliament
at the time of his election. The court found that
although policy proposals were in place since
1963, there was no law that one had to undergo
a course in a structured manner until the
enactment of education (pre-primary, primary
and post primary) Act No.13 of 2008.the court
further found that at the time when the 1 st
respondent attained the advanced certificate of

education the recent act was inapplicable as it
would act retrospectively and in contravention
of the constitution. Therefore the court was
satisfied that the appellant failed to prove that
the 1 st respondent at the time of his nomination
did not have the minimum requirement and
that he was not qualified to be nominated and
elected member of parliament. Hence court
upheld the decision of the trial court.
The court whether the petition disclosed a
cause of action against the 2 nd respondent. The
court referred to the rule that a cause of action
is said to be disclosed if the averments in the
pleadings, show the existence of the plaintiff’s
right, the right was violated and the defendant
is liable for the violation. The found that no
cause of action was disclosed in the pleading as
it acted upon the papers presented to it.
The court considered whether or not the 1 st
respondent who was neither a Christian or
Muslim nor a Jew could swear a competent
affidavit. The court held that swearing was not
restricting to holly books. It is a constitutional
right to practice any religion or custom and it
widely protected under art. 129(1)b and c.
Further that where there is an existing law
consistent with the constitution should be
modified, adapted. Therefore court found that
learned trial judge had no legal basis to hold
that the respondent’s affidavits were contrary
to s.8 of the Oaths Act.

The court considered whether the trial judge
was right to struck out the 1 st respondents act.
The court found that the trial judge was wrong
to do so. The court further found that an
answer to the petition could be accompanied
by affidavits of another person who may have
knowledge of the same fact. The court held
that the learned trial judge was not justified in
doing so. In considering costs, the court held
that all respondents were entitled to the costs
as they were represented by the same counsel
even though the 1 st respondents answer to the
petition was rejected.