Former Kampala Central Parliamentary contestant Fred Nyanzi has said he is going to appeal against High Court decision of kicking out his election petition against MP Muhammad Nsereko.
Addressing the media on Wednesday, Nyanzi said that if courts and the electoral commission agree to let people win cases on technicalities it will be a new way of creating dangerous precedents which will endanger the future of Uganda’s democracy.
“One of the strongest pillars in our country is that we all resort to our courts of law under the Judiciary. However, we are very skeptical that the judiciary is getting bunted every day. As a law-abiding citizen, I want to exhaust all steps of court as far as the electoral petition is concerned. Now as a litigant I have decided to take further steps going to the Court of Appeal. I want it to reconsider the ruling of the High Court in my case. I’m not satisfied with the way the matter was handled.”
Nyanzi’s appeal follows the High Court ruling on Tuesday where Justice Margaret Apiny dismissed the petition in which the former was challenging the Nsereko’s election victory in the last January 14 polls.
While making her ruling Justice Apiny sais the second respondent (Nsereko) was not duly served with the petition as required by the law.
“The attempts to serve the third respondent at parliament, Chief Magistrates Court in Mengo, his Bugoloobi residence with success and the transmission of the documents on What’s App did not amount to personal service envisioned under rule6(3) of the Parliamentary Election (Election petitions) Rules. It is therefore my finding that personal service was not effected upon the third respondent as directed by the court order. In the instant case, the service that was expected of the petitioner (Nyanzi) was by effecting serving upon the third respondent personally and not place it in a conspicuous place as was done by depositing the notice of presentation of the petition at the gate,” Justice Apiny said.
However, reacting to the ruling Nyanzi noted, “We were instructed to serve him in the first period of seven days, he decided to fly out and hide for seven days. We went and applied for substitution service. We went to the judge four times telling him the Minister of Internal Affairs has denied chances to get his travel details. In all the papers we have they show that he was served so there is no way the court would say that we did not serve him.”
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at email@example.com