The High Court has dismissed an application by Kiyaga Hillary Innocent, popularly known as Dr Hilderman, seeking access to Electoral Commission records as part of his legal challenge against the election of former minister Ameria Kyambadde as Mawokota North Member of Parliament.
In a ruling delivered by Justice Jamson Karemani, the court found that Kiyaga’s request for electoral documents was too broad, ambiguous and lacked the specificity required for a court to order discovery of evidence.
The decision is a setback in Kiyaga’s election petition, which challenges the outcome of the 2026 parliamentary election in Mawokota North, Mpigi District.
Kiyaga had asked the court to compel the Electoral Commission to produce certified copies of official report books, lists of presiding officers, ballot paper accountability forms and declaration of results forms used at polling stations across the constituency.
He also sought access to the original declaration of results forms attached to official report books as well as those sealed inside ballot boxes from polling stations in various parishes and wards, including Kamengo.
The Electoral Commission opposed the application, arguing that it failed to identify the specific polling stations from which the documents were being sought.
The commission maintained that Mawokota North is a large constituency and that Kiyaga’s request amounted to a fishing expedition because it sought sweeping access to electoral records without clearly identifying the relevant documents.
Justice Karemani agreed with the Electoral Commission, emphasizing that discovery applications are intended to obtain clearly identified evidence rather than permit general inspections of an opponent’s records.
“An application for discovery must be specific, must establish materiality, and must recite precisely what is wanted. It does not permit general inspection of the adversary’s records,” Justice Karemani ruled.
The judge noted that Kiyaga referred broadly to parishes and wards without identifying the particular polling stations where he believed irregularities occurred.
“I also find this request very broad. The applicant’s request is in relation to parishes/wards without specifically stating at which polling stations the said information is being required,” the judge said.
Justice Karemani added that although parishes and wards are administrative units of equivalent status, they are distinct and cannot substitute for identifying specific polling stations.
The court also found inconsistencies between the documents Kiyaga had previously requested from the Electoral Commission through correspondence and those he later sought through the court application.
According to the ruling, the application attempted to provide more detail than the earlier requests but still failed to identify the documents with sufficient clarity.
“In this application the applicant attempted to give details of the information sought but not clearly so as to be understood,” the judge observed.
The court held that before a party can claim that information was ignored or denied by a public body, it must demonstrate that the same clearly defined request had previously been made and refused.
“If the information sought in the application is different from the one that was sought for before, it cannot be said to have been requested for and was denied,” Justice Karemani said.
The judge stressed that documents sought through discovery must be described with enough precision to allow them to be readily identified.
“The documents sought from the respondent must be specified in sufficient particularity and the specific documents desired clearly named so that they can be clearly identified,” he ruled.
Justice Karemani further described Kiyaga’s earlier requests for all election related information as unreasonable and ambiguous.
“The general requests for all information relating to the election by the applicant in the letters was rather unreasonable and ambiguous,” the ruling states.
The court ultimately concluded that Kiyaga had failed to establish a proper legal basis for compelling the Electoral Commission to produce the records.
“In conclusion, I find that the applicant has not made out a proper case for the grant of an order of discovery against the respondent. Consequently, this application is dismissed with costs,” the judge ruled.
The ruling leaves the Electoral Commission under no obligation to release the requested electoral records through this discovery application and marks an early procedural victory for the commission as Kiyaga continues pursuing his election challenge against Kyambadde, a veteran politician and former Minister for Trade, Industry and Cooperatives who returned to Parliament after winning the Mawokota North seat in the 2026 General Election.
