By UG Reports 

SOROTI: The Court of Appeal has upheld the High court judgment nullifying the election of Moses Attan as the Soroti City East Member of Parliament.

The Court of Appeal Judges are Cheborion Barishaki, Stephen Musota, and Christopher Gashirabake. They ordered Electoral Commission to conduct by-elections for Soroti City East.

According to the judgment read out on Tuesday by the Court of Appeal Registrar Susan Kanyange on behalf of the Justices, the demarcation of boundaries within the constituency was not properly done.

The judgment arose from an appeal filed by Attan challenging the Soroti High Court decision that had ordered him out of Parliament and allowed a by-election in Soroti City East Constituency following a petition by Herbert Edmund Ariko.

Last year, Soroti High Court Judge Anne Mugenyi nullified the victory of Attan on grounds that his election was conducted in non-existent wards of Aloet and Opiyai.

Mugenyi’s decision was based on a March 10th, 2021, High Court judgment that saw Justice Wilson Masalu Musene revert Opiyai and Aloet to Soroti City East Division.

The two wards had previously been annexed to Soroti City West Division by the same judge in November 2020.

But Justice Musene said that he had not been served with documents for the creation of Soroti City from Parliament and declaration of the cabinet on the same, hence his decision.

Mugenyi relied on the same decision noting that there was gross non-compliance with the electoral laws which affected the results in a substantial manner because there was disenfranchising of 5,233 voters from both Aloet and Opiyai.

He ordered the Electoral Commission to conduct fresh elections and ordered Attan to pay costs to Ariko.

Attan through his lawyers of Galisonga and Company Advocates and Alliance Advocates filed an appeal raising six major grounds which he says that the learned Soroti High Court Judge erred upon to reach her decision.

According to the appeal, Attan among other grounds argued that the learned trial Judge erred in law in entertaining Ariko’s petition because she didn’t have jurisdiction to hear it while relying on the decisions made by the same court to which High Court lacked jurisdiction.

Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us? Email us at editorial@ugreports.com

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button