The High Court in Wakiso has affirmed the election of James Kakooza as the Member of Parliament representing older persons in the Central Region, bringing an end to a legal challenge that had cast a shadow over his win.
Justice George Okello, delivering his ruling on November 5, 2026, declared Kakooza validly elected for the 2026 to 2031 parliamentary term. The decision dismisses a petition that had sought to overturn the outcome of the February 2, 2026 election.
A Contest Under Scrutiny
The petition was brought by Mary Amanyire Sendi, who ran against Kakooza as an independent candidate. According to results announced by the Electoral Commission, Kakooza, who contested on the National Resistance Movement ticket, secured 111 votes against Sendi's 50, a margin of 61 votes.
Sendi had argued that the Electoral Commission failed to conduct the election in line with electoral laws. She also accused Kakooza of bribery, claiming he offered accommodation, transport, food and other benefits to members of the Electoral College in an effort to sway their votes in his favour.
In addition, the petitioner alleged that the commission manipulated the voters' register and denied her a fair opportunity to campaign. The court, however, found no sufficient grounds to invalidate the election.
What the Ruling Means
The judgment clears the way for Kakooza to continue representing older persons in the Central Region, a constituency whose interests include social protection, healthcare access and welfare support for the elderly. The case also highlights ongoing concerns about the integrity of elections for special interest groups, where small electoral colleges can make outcomes highly sensitive to allegations of influence and irregularity.
For Sendi, the ruling closes a legal avenue she had pursued since the February poll. Neither side had issued a detailed public statement at the time of reporting.
The decision adds to a growing body of election petitions that courts have handled since the 2026 general elections, with judges repeatedly called upon to weigh claims of bribery and administrative failure against the need for stability in representation.
