The High Court has dismissed a petition by Nakawa Division West MP aspirant Ivan Bwowe, clearing Leader of the Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi and six other candidates to stay on the ballot.
Bwowe had asked court to cancel the nomination of Ssenyonyi and other contestants after their nomination papers described the constituency as “Nakawa West” instead of “Nakawa Division West”.
He argued that “Nakawa West” does not exist and wanted court to disqualify the candidates and have him declared elected unopposed.
In the ruling dated January 8, 2026, Justice Collins Acelam upheld the Electoral Commission’s earlier decision and found that the mistake was a clerical error that did not affect the substance of the nominations.
The judge said the law allows the commission to correct minor irregularities, and that court must prioritise substantive justice over procedural technicalities.
“I agree with counsel for the Respondents that the “Nakawa West” Constituency and “Nakawa Division West Constituency” are one and the same but often used interchangeably,” the judge ruled
“The Electoral commission maintained the nomination of all contestants for that constituency averring that it was a clerical error which was corrected.
“I agree that the failure by the 2nd–8th Respondents to fill in the correct name of the Constituency for which they were seeking nomination is a minor irregularity or misnomer which could be cured by the Commission under the powers conferred upon it by section 15 of the Act and section 29(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act.”
He noted that the control form and other supporting documents showed the correct constituency as Nakawa Division West, so the error could not mislead voters or invalidate the process.
The judge further observed that, in the court file, Bwowe himself appeared on the nomination form as a duly nominated candidate for “Nakawa West”, yet he did not raise that “anomaly” at the time.
The decision ends days of uncertainty in the race. Tension rose on January 7, 2026, after court informed Ssenyonyi’s lawyers that the ruling had been rescheduled to January 8, 2026, and would be delivered through the Judiciary’s electronic system.
Court dismissed the petition and directed each party to meet its own costs.
