The Supreme Court has formally discontinued Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2026 following the petitioner’s application to withdraw the case, declaring that the candidate earlier announced by the Electoral Commission remains the duly elected President of Uganda.
In a detailed ruling delivered unanimously, the court emphasised that filing a presidential election petition is a serious constitutional undertaking that must be approached with full awareness of its legal and logistical implications.
“A presidential election petition is not an ordinary litigation,” the justices stated. “It relates to the highest office in this land.”
Petition Withdrawn
The court noted that the petitioner had admitted that the evidence presented so far was insufficient to prove his case. The justices ruled that denying the request to withdraw would serve no useful purpose.
“Accordingly, by the unanimous decision of this court, we grant the applicant the leave sought,” the panel ruled.
As a result, both Presidential Election Petition No. 1 of 2026 and Presidential Election Application No. 1 of 2026 were discontinued.
President Declared Duly Elected
Citing Section 61(4) of the Presidential Elections Act, the court explained the legal consequences of withdrawing a petition. Without a valid challenge, the candidate declared winner by the Electoral Commission stands unopposed.
“Without a valid and legal challenge to the election, the candidate earlier declared by the Electoral Commission as the winner of the Presidential election stands unchallenged and is conclusively taken to be the duly elected President of the Republic of Uganda,” the court held.
The justices therefore confirmed that, following the withdrawal, the declared winner is conclusively taken to have been duly elected President.
The court also observed that this was the fifth presidential election petition filed since the promulgation of the 1995 Constitution. It noted that substantial local jurisprudence and experience now exist to guide candidates and their legal teams before deciding to challenge election results.
“The decision to challenge the results of a Presidential election is an extremely important decision which ought not to be taken casually,” the court warned.
Court Explains 15-Day Pressure
In its ruling, the court highlighted the immense logistical demands involved in prosecuting a presidential election petition. With more than 50,000 polling stations across the country, gathering, analysing and presenting evidence within the constitutionally prescribed 15 days presents significant challenges.
The justices stressed that such implications should be carefully evaluated before instituting a petition.
Costs: Discretion, Not Automatic
On the contentious issue of costs, the respondents had argued that they incurred substantial expenses defending what they described as a meritless case and sought reimbursement. The petitioner, on the other hand, asked the court not to impose costs.
The court examined Section 63(4) of the Presidential Elections Act and Rule 20(7) of the Presidential Election Petitions Rules, which state that a petitioner “shall be liable” to pay costs upon withdrawal.
However, relying on its earlier decision in Kyagulanyi v Museveni & Others (Presidential Election Application No. 5 of 2021), the court held that the provision is directory, not mandatory.
The justices also referred to comparative jurisprudence, including the Jamaican Court of Appeal decision in Thompson-Dudley v Atkinson (1982), which interpreted similar wording as preserving judicial discretion.
Further reference was made to practices in Kenya following the 2010 Constitution, where the Supreme Court has generally applied a “each party bears its own costs” principle in presidential election petitions, including in the landmark 2017 case where the election result was nullified.
Balancing the need to reimburse successful parties with the need to promote access to justice and avoid discouraging legitimate constitutional challenges, the court exercised its discretion.
Like in previous Ugandan precedents, the justices ordered that each party bear its own costs.
Constitutional Moment
The ruling brings to a close the only presidential election petition filed following the 2026 general election. With the withdrawal now formalised and the legal consequences clarified, the Electoral Commission’s declared winner remains constitutionally affirmed as President of the Republic of Uganda.
The decision reinforces the Supreme Court’s position that while the right to challenge a presidential election is fundamental, it must be pursued with full preparedness, sufficient evidence and clear appreciation of the constitutional stakes involved.