The High Court sitting in Mpigi has dismissed an application by Kiyaga Hillary Innocent aka Hilderman seeking to compel the Electoral Commission to produce a raft of election records, ruling that his demand was too broad, insufficiently specific and amounted to a “fishing expedition.”
Justice Jamson Karemani K, in a ruling delivered on September 16, 2026, rejected Kiyaga’s application for discovery of election documents, including declaration of results forms, official report books, lists of presiding officers and ballot-paper accountability forms.
The application arose from Election Petition No. 0001 of 2026, in which Kiyaga is challenging the election and has raised allegations concerning the alleged alteration, falsification or manipulation of declaration of results forms.
Kiyaga had asked the court to order the Electoral Commission to produce records from polling stations across Kamengo, Kanyike, Kyanja, Musa, Jjeza, Lugyo, Malima Tiribogo, Bulerejje, Mbazzi, Kyaliward and Kikondo.
He also sought certified copies of original declaration of results forms attached to official report books and copies sealed inside ballot boxes.
But the Electoral Commission fought back, accusing the applicant of embarking on a fishing expedition and randomly searching through its records in the hope of finding evidence to support his election petition.
The Commission argued that the application failed to demonstrate the relevance and materiality of the documents sought and that much of the information was already available to Kiyaga through declaration of results forms, which contained details including presiding officers, ballot-paper accountability and polling-station incidents.
Judge: Discovery Is Not a Fishing Expedition
Justice Karemani emphasized that discovery is intended to help a litigant obtain relevant information necessary to prepare an existing case—not to enable a party to search for evidence in the hope that something useful will emerge.
The judge held that an application for discovery must be specific, establish materiality and precisely identify what is wanted. It cannot be used to demand general inspection of an opponent’s records.
The court found Kiyaga’s request for documents covering entire parishes and wards too broad because those administrative areas could contain several polling stations.
According to the ruling, the applicant was required to identify the specific polling stations and their locations rather than simply naming parishes and wards.
The judge further found ambiguity in Kiyaga’s wording because his application referred to the listed parishes and wards while separately saying “including the polling stations” named in the application.
That wording, the court held, made it impossible to determine with certainty whether Kiyaga wanted records from the entire parishes and wards, the separately listed polling stations, or both.
Court Rejects Suspicion-Based Search for Evidence
A central blow to the application came when the judge examined Kiyaga’s claim that declaration of results forms used by the Electoral Commission differed from copies given to his agents.
The court found that Kiyaga had not clearly demonstrated why he believed such differences existed.
Instead, Justice Karemani said the applicant appeared to be proceeding on an assumption that altered forms existed and was seeking discovery to establish whether his suspicions were true.
The court held that a litigant cannot use discovery to randomly search for additional evidence in the hope that something will emerge to support the case.
The judge was equally unimpressed by an argument concerning a presiding officer identified as Nalubega Sharifa, who Kiyaga’s lawyers alleged had signed at two different polling stations on the same election day.
Justice Karemani ruled that the allegation had not originally been pleaded in the application and therefore could not form the basis of the discovery request.
Ballot Box Forms: Judge Rejects Kiyaga’s Argument
Kiyaga’s lawyers argued that declaration of results forms sealed inside ballot boxes were particularly important because candidates had never possessed those copies, making them the ultimate control documents against which allegedly altered forms could be compared.
The judge rejected that argument.
Justice Karemani relied on Section 69(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, which provides for multiple copies of declaration of results forms, including copies attached to the report book, retained by the presiding officer, transmitted to the Electoral Commission, given to candidate agents and sealed inside the ballot box.
The court held that the copy given to a candidate’s agent is a direct replica of the copy deposited in the ballot box.
Kiyaga had also failed to demonstrate that his agents had not received the relevant forms.
The judge therefore found that he had not supplied sufficient evidence showing that the forms sealed in the ballot boxes contained falsified or altered results.
Six Letters Also Failed to Rescue Application
Kiyaga’s lawyers told court that they had written six formal letters to the Electoral Commission seeking the documents before filing the application.
But the judge found that the letters did not establish the required prior attempt at voluntary cooperation.
According to the ruling, the first five letters were general, did not identify particular polling stations and sought information that differed from the documents eventually demanded in the court application.
The court held that a request can only be considered to have been ignored or rejected if it clearly identifies what is being sought and demonstrates that the same information was subsequently denied.
Justice Karemani described the general requests for election information as unreasonable and ambiguous.
Application Dismissed With Costs
In the final blow, the High Court concluded that Kiyaga had failed to establish a proper case for an order of discovery against the Electoral Commission.
The application was consequently dismissed with costs.
The ruling does not, on its face, determine the substantive election petition itself. Rather, it concerns Kiyaga’s application seeking access to additional election documents in preparation for or pursuit of his challenge.
The substantive election dispute therefore remains distinct from this discovery application.
Justice Jamson Karemani K. delivered the ruling on September 16, 2026, at the High Court of Uganda sitting at Mpigi.
