The High Court in Mpigi has dismissed an application by former Mawokota County North MP Dr. Hilderman seeking to compel MP Kyambadde Amelia Anne to produce copies of Declaration of Results (DR) forms allegedly given to her polling agents during the January 2026 elections.
Justice Jamson Karemani, in a ruling delivered on September 30, 2026, dismissed the application and ordered each party to bear its own costs.
Dr. Hilderman had asked the court to order Kyambadde to produce DR forms from 37 polling stations for inspection and comparison with forms in his possession and those obtained from the Electoral Commission.
He argued that the documents were necessary to establish his claim that some of the results forms used by the Electoral Commission to declare Kyambadde the winner had been altered.
Kyambadde, who was declared the winner with 27,075 votes against Dr. Hilderman’s 24,801 votes, opposed the application, arguing that the request was a fishing expedition and an attempt to gather evidence outside the issues raised in the election petition.
Dr. Hilderman’s lawyers argued that the documents were relevant because, according to their case, there were differences between forms allegedly given to candidates’ agents at polling stations and forms later used by the Electoral Commission in declaring the final results.
However, Justice Karemani found that Dr. Hilderman had failed to establish that Kyambadde was actually in possession of the specific DR forms he sought.
The judge noted that under Section 69(1)(d) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, presiding officers are required to give copies of the Declaration of Results forms to candidates’ polling agents.
He observed, however, that the law does not require the agents to subsequently hand those forms to their respective candidates.
“The law doesn’t mandate delivery of these forms by the agents to the candidates. It stops at ensuring that each agent receives a copy of the DR form from the presiding officer,” Justice Karemani ruled.
He added that the Electoral Commission is the body legally required to retain election materials until any disputes are resolved.
“The rest of the participants in the process are only presumed to have the same materials,” the judge said.
He noted that without proof that a party actually possesses the documents, that party cannot be compelled to produce them.
On the relevance of the requested forms, Justice Karemani agreed with Dr. Hilderman that the documents could potentially be relevant and material to the election petition.
However, he faulted Dr. Hilderman for waiting until September to seek the documents, despite the main petition and response having been filed in March.
The judge said the delay was particularly significant because election petitions are required to be handled expeditiously.
“I do find that the filing of an application for discovery after five months from the filing of the main petition to be an act of a non-vigilant party,” he ruled.
Justice Karemani also rejected Dr. Hilderman’s argument that the application was a legitimate discovery request, finding that it amounted to a fishing expedition.
The judge said Dr. Hilderman already had the DR forms from his own agents and had also received forms originating from the Electoral Commission through the respondent’s pleadings.
“The applicant does not show that the respondent possesses other forms that are falsified apart from these but appears to be beating up the bush with hope to get support for his claim from the respondent,” Justice Karemani said.
He concluded that seeking the forms from Kyambadde, whose source of the documents was the same Electoral Commission relied upon by Dr. Hilderman, would amount to a waste of the court’s time.
“Seeking for the information from the respondent whose source is the same as his is a wastage of courts time and amounts to fishing expedition,” the judge ruled.
The court consequently dismissed Election Petition Application No. 03 of 2026, which arose from Election Petition No. 01 of 2026, and directed that each party bear its own costs.
