Last week, Justice Margaret Apiny dismissed Nyanzi's petition. She ruled that Nyanzi had not personally served Nsereko and didn't exploit available options like asking the court to extend the time for service such that he could serve Nyanzi.
Fred Nyanzi has listed nine grounds in his appeal against a High
Court decision dismissing his petition challenging the victory of Muhammad
Nsereko, the Member of Parliament for Kampala Central.
Nyanzi who contested on the National Unity Platform-NUP ticket sued the
Electoral Commission, the Kampala Returning Officer and Nsereko over election
irregularities including bribery. He filed his petition in March 2021 but while
he ably served the first two respondents, he failed to serve Nsereko who he
accused of dodging service.
The Electoral Commission asked the court to dismiss the petition on grounds
that it would beat the principles of justice if the case continued to trial
when the third respondent is not served.
Last week, Justice Margaret Apiny dismissed Nyanzi's petition. She
ruled that Nyanzi had not personally served Nsereko and didn't exploit
available options like asking the court to extend the time for service such that
he could serve Nyanzi.
In his appeal filed on Wednesday, Nyanzi says that Justice Apiny erred in law
and fact by finding that Nsereko was not served. He adds that Justice Apiny also
was wrong when she ruled that leaving a copy of documents of service in a
conspicuous place at the residence of Nyanzi didn't meet the requirement of
During the hearing of the petition, Nyanzi told the court that
when he took documents of service to Nsereko and he declined to acknowledge
receipt, he pinned them at the gate and took photos which be presented before the
court, but Justice Apiny didn't find this as personal service.
Nyanzi further says that Justice Apiny make a mistake when she ruled that all
attempts to serve Nsereko through Parliament, his known residence, via WhatsApp
and through the Chief Magistrate court in Mengo didn't amount to personal
service and also that she erred when she struck out Nyanzi's petition from
Nyanzi also says that the court failed to properly evaluate evidence that he
made all reasonable efforts to serve Nsereko and that she failed to rule that
Nyanzi instructed three law firms who filed a notice of appeal and appeared
before court hence waiving the right to be served.
Nyanzi further says that Justice Phillip Odoki who ruled on his application for
seeking to serve Nsereko through newspapers also erred in law and fact when he
denied him alternative service despite adducing evidence that it was
practically impossible to serve Nsereko personally.
Nyanzi, therefore, wants the court to set aside Justice Apiny's ruling and that
of justice Odoki and declare that there was effective service. He also wants
the case to be heard again on merit and award him costs at both the appellant and