The High Court in Mpigi has dismissed an application by parliamentary candidate Kiyaga Hillary Innocent seeking access to election records held by the Electoral Commission, saying the request was too broad and amounted to a fishing expedition.
Justice Jamson Karemani, in a ruling delivered on September 16, said Kiyaga had failed to specify with sufficient particularity the polling stations from which he wanted the election documents.
Kiyaga had asked the court to order the Electoral Commission to produce certified copies of official report books, lists of presiding officers, ballot paper accountability forms and declaration of results forms from polling stations in several parishes and wards.
He also sought copies of declaration of results forms sealed in ballot boxes, arguing that the documents were relevant to an election petition in which he alleges that results forms were illegally altered or manipulated.
The application arose from Election Petition No. 1 of 2026, in which Kiyaga is challenging the election results.
However, Justice Karemani said discovery of documents is a discretionary process that requires an applicant to demonstrate that the information sought is relevant and material to the issues before court, is in the possession or control of the respondent, and that reasonable attempts have been made to obtain it voluntarily.
The judge said the request for records from the listed parishes and wards was too broad because each parish or ward could contain several polling stations.
“The person seeking discovery has therefore got to give the above material information to enable sorting out what is exactly required,” Justice Karemani ruled.
He said election materials are organised according to the district, constituency, sub-county or town council, parish or ward and finally the polling station, making it necessary for an applicant to identify the specific polling stations concerned.
The court also rejected the argument that the declaration of results forms sealed in ballot boxes were inaccessible to candidates.
Justice Karemani cited Section 69(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which provides for several copies of the declaration of results form, including one to be delivered to each candidate’s agent and another to be deposited and sealed in the ballot box.
He said the copy given to a candidate’s agent is a direct replica of the copy sealed in the ballot box.
“The applicant did not show that the forms were not provided to his agents in order for him to claim that he did not have access,” the judge said.
The court further found that Kiyaga had not provided sufficient evidence showing that the forms sealed in the ballot boxes contained falsified or altered results.
Instead, the judge said, the application appeared to seek access to the documents to establish whether the applicant’s suspicions were true.
Justice Karemani also considered six letters that Kiyaga’s lawyers said had been sent to the Electoral Commission seeking the documents before the application was filed.
He found that the earlier requests were general and did not clearly identify the specific polling stations or documents sought.
The judge said a request must be clear and specific before it can be said to have been ignored or rejected by a respondent.
“It therefore follows that the documents sought from the respondent must be specified in sufficient particularity and the specific documents desired clearly named so that they can be clearly identified,” he ruled.
The court consequently found that Kiyaga had not established a proper case for an order of discovery and dismissed the application with costs.
The main election petition remains the substantive matter in which Kiyaga is challenging the election results.
