The High Court in Mpigi has made a landmark decision to allow an election petition to move forward despite repeated failed attempts to serve the respondent personally. The ruling demonstrates the court’s commitment to both procedural fairness and the timely resolution of electoral disputes.
On April 2, 2026, Acting High Court Judge Deepa Verma granted the petitioner, Hillary Kiyaga, permission to extend the filing period and employ substituted service to ensure the respondent receives formal notice. The decision underscores the court’s willingness to intervene where procedural obstacles threaten the administration of justice.
The court allowed Kiyaga additional time to make the necessary applications and effect proper service, noting that strict statutory deadlines under Ugandan electoral law could be relaxed when special circumstances exist. This measure was deemed crucial to prevent the petition from being dismissed on purely technical grounds.
To notify the respondent, Amelia Kyambadde, the court approved publication of the petition in national newspapers, including the New Vision and Daily Monitor. Additionally, the court ordered copies of the petition and notice of presentation to be affixed at the court notice board and at Kyambadde’s last known residence.
The respondent has been directed to appear before Anthony Oyuko on April 13, 2026, at 8 a.m. The court also stated that the costs related to this application will be determined during the main petition proceedings.
This intervention followed repeated unsuccessful efforts to personally serve Kyambadde within the statutory seven-day window. Process server Thomas Mukama attempted to reach her at both her workplace and residence and even made phone contact, but the respondent could not be located, appearing to evade service.
Justice Verma emphasized that while electoral law imposes strict deadlines, the courts retain discretion to allow extensions where reasonable efforts have been made. She ruled that Kiyaga’s diligent attempts constituted sufficient grounds to justify substituted service and time extension.
The ruling strikes a careful balance between enforcing procedural rules and ensuring fairness in the electoral process. By permitting alternative service, the court has ensured that the petition can proceed on its merits while safeguarding the respondent’s right to proper notice, keeping the wheels of justice in motion.
About the Author
