By Aggrey Baba
There was drama at the High Court in Kampala on Tuesday as supporters of NRM’s Salim Saad Uhuru and his election challenger Moses Katabu of NUP engaged in a physical altercation shortly after Justice Flavia Nabakooza delivered a ruling in the disputed Kampala Central Division mayoral election.
The proceedings, which had been scheduled to begin at 10am, started later than expected after Justice Nabakooza arrived at exactly 1:12pm at the open court on the fourth floor of TWED Towers, where the matter was being heard.
Upon taking her place, the judge apologized for the delay, explaining that she had left court very late the previous day and had not had enough time to prepare her ruling. She told the parties that she had since completed it and was ready to deliver her decision.
The ruling took the parties by surprise because, while the immediate application concerned additional affidavits filed in support of the election petition, the judge first examined whether the underlying petition had been filed within the statutory deadline.
Justice Nabakooza found that the petition was filed outside the mandatory 14-day period, rendering it time-barred and incompetent before court.
The decision set the stage for the tense scenes that followed outside the courtroom, where the rival camps offered sharply contrasting reactions.
Katabu began addressing journalists at the court entrance, expressing dissatisfaction with the ruling and maintaining that the evidence he had assembled to challenge Uhuru’s election had not been adequately considered.
His lawyer, Kenneth Kakande Paul, also questioned the course taken by the proceedings, saying they had expected the judge to rule on the application concerning the additional affidavits.
Kakande argued that the court should also have considered the legal provisions governing electronic filing, including the use of screenshots to demonstrate failed attempts to electronically file documents due to network problems.
The atmosphere changed when Uhuru arrived downstairs with a large delegation of supporters, many of whom were singing in celebration of the ruling. He found Katabu addressing journalists and moved closer to speak to the media himself.
However, the arrival of Uhuru’s cheering supporters appeared to anger members of Katabu’s camp, triggering a physical confrontation in which supporters from both sides pushed one another, with Katabu also pushing Uhuru, which added salt to an open wound.
The altercation briefly disrupted the media briefings and drew the attention of people gathered at the court. Uhuru eventually moved outside the premises, where he addressed journalists as the rival groups separated.
Speaking after the ruling, Uhuru insisted that his victory had come from the electorate rather than the court proceedings.
“My win has been based on the people, and I want to thank Katabu for bringing me to court to get what he expected, a win,” Uhuru said.
He maintained that he had campaigned on his manifesto and won through popular support, pointing to the 35,000 votes he said he had secured.
Uhuru also said he believed he deserved compensation for the time and resources spent defending himself against the election challenge, although the judge had made no order as to costs.
He said he would consider the matter later.
Katabu, however, remained defiant, telling journalists that he was not satisfied with the decision and was ready to appeal.
He maintained that he had substantial evidence challenging Uhuru’s election which, in his view, had not been adequately examined by the court.
His lawyer, Kakande, similarly questioned the ruling, arguing that the court had moved beyond the application the parties had expected it to determine.
In her decision, Justice Nabakooza explained that the election results had been published in the Uganda Gazette on May 15, 2026, meaning the statutory filing deadline expired on May 29. The petition was filed on May 30 at 12:21pm, one day late.
The judge relied on previous decisions emphasizing that the statutory deadline for local government election petitions is mandatory. She consequently found the related application incompetent and dismissed it without determining the substantive arguments over the additional affidavits.
She made no order for costs, explaining that compliance with the statutory filing period had been raised by the court on its own motion rather than by either party. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
