Ugandans cast their ballots months ago.
But in hundreds of electoral contests, the final word may now come not from the polling station but from the courtroom. Across the country, 346 challenges arising from the 2026 parliamentary and Local Council elections have entered the courts, leaving candidates fighting over declared results and voters waiting to know whether the people announced as their representatives will remain in office.
The scale of the exercise is huge. The Judiciary has assigned 100 judicial officers to the cases: 48 High court judges will handle 157 petitions, while 52 chief magistrates will hear another 189.
The disputes are spread across 30 High court stations, the High court civil division and 26 Chief Magistrates’ courts. Behind those numbers lies a more important question for voters: when somebody challenges an election result, what can the courts change? The answer can range from nothing at all to another election.
WHAT CAN BE CHALLENGED?
Counsel Benson Ogwang said an election petition may be brought where the electoral process allegedly failed to comply with applicable law.
“If the election process was not conducted in accordance with the electoral acts,” Ogwang said, explaining one ground on which an election may be challenged.
The precise grounds and procedures depend on the election being challenged. In parliamentary election petitions, for instance, disputes may concern compliance with electoral laws, whether any noncompliance affected the result, or whether a candidate was qualified to be elected.
But an allegation is not a finding. The petitioner must produce evidence to support the claims before court. Some petitions may concern what happened during polling, counting or tallying. Others may question the legality of electoral decisions.
The existence of 346 petitions, therefore, does not mean 346 elections were improperly conducted. Each dispute must stand or fall on its own facts, evidence and the applicable law. Ogwang believes even the large number of petitions may not capture the full extent of dissatisfaction with election results.
“The picture is not very encouraging. In my opinion, the 346 election petitions are even few,” he said.
“There are many people out there who would like to file petitions, but they are not sure whether things will turn out in their favour.”
That is Ogwang’s assessment, not evidence that people with election grievances have been prevented from going to court. He also referred to his own previous experience with an election petition, although this report did not establish the details of his role in that case.
Filing an election petition does not automatically remove the declared winner. The court must first hear the evidence and legal arguments. If the petitioner fails to establish the case, the court may dismiss the petition, and the declared result may remain unchanged.
Where the requirements of the applicable law are met, however, a court may set aside an election, declare another candidate duly elected where the law permits, or order a fresh election. A recount may also be available under the applicable law.
Ogwang identified a by-election as one possible outcome of a successful petition. For voters, that distinction matters. A court case can end without changing their representative.
But in another case, a judgment could alter who is legally recognized as elected or send voters back to the polls. And a judgment may not necessarily end the dispute. Depending on the applicable legal provisions, parties may have the right to appeal.
That means the political contest that appeared to end at the ballot box can continue in court for some time. The disputes are scattered across the country and arise from different electoral contests.
In Oyam South, Queen Dorothy Amolo challenged the election of Ogwang Obura, amid reports alleging a ballot mix-up. In Kalungu, Helen Nakeeya challenged Aisha Sekindi’s election. The allegations in those petitions should not be confused with court findings.
They illustrate, however, how disputes over events and decisions during an election can eventually move from polling stations and tally centres into courtrooms. The caseload is also unevenly distributed. Masaka recorded 21 High court petitions.
At Chief Magistrates’ court level, Makindye has 31 petitions, Kawempe 20, Nabweru 17, Mengo 16 and Kira 15. Those figures tell us where petitions have been filed. They do not tell us why some areas produced more disputes than others.
Answering that question would require examining the individual races, allegations and circumstances that drove candidates to court. Earlier Judiciary reporting had put the number of election petitions at 118—107 parliamentary petitions and 11 local government petitions.
At first glance, the jump from 118 to 346 looks dramatic. But the figures were reported at different stages of the post-election process. They should not be treated as a straightforward comparison without first establishing whether they cover the same filing periods, election categories, and reporting stages.
The latter figure may partly reflect the progression of filings rather than a sudden increase in electoral disputes. The same caution applies when comparing 2026 with previous elections.
To determine whether Uganda is experiencing more election litigation than before, we would need comparable figures from previous election cycles, covering the same types of elections and roughly the same point in the post-election calendar.
Without that comparison, 346 tells us the scale of the current court workload. It does not, by itself, tell us whether Uganda’s elections have become more disputed.
THE COURTS TAKE OVER
The Judiciary has created a special programme to deal with the cases, placing election petitions ahead of ordinary judicial assignments during the hearing period. In Kampala, 20 petitions were listed on the first day, with 17 scheduled for pre-trial proceedings.
Pre-trial hearings are an important but less dramatic part of the process. They allow the court and the parties to identify and organize the issues that must be determined before a case proceeds to a full hearing.
The ultimate decisions will depend on the evidence and legal arguments in individual cases, not on how many petitions were filed in a constituency, district or court circuit. For voters, that is where the significance of the coming weeks lies. The election produced declared winners.
The courts must now determine whether the challenged results can withstand legal scrutiny. Some petitions will fail, leaving the declared results intact. Others may produce orders that change who is recognized as elected or require voters to return to the polls.