Just In: High Court Throws Out Nakku’s Case Against NRM, NIRA — Upholds Her Disqualification | Read Full Judgment

By Our Reporter

The High Court in Kampala has dismissed an application by Fiona Nakku, who sought to stop her removal as the National Resistance Movement (NRM) flag bearer for the National Female Youth Member of Parliament position.

Justice Collins Acelam, sitting in the Civil Division, ruled on August 23 (today) that the request for an interim injunction had been overtaken by events since the National Identification and Registration Authority (NIRA) had already reverted Nakku’s date of birth to December 20, 1994 — making her ineligible for youth positions under the National Youth Council Act, which defines youth as persons aged 18 to 30.

“The status quo sought to be maintained by the applicant has already been altered by the first respondent. Therefore, the situation has already been overtaken by events,” Justice Acelam said in his decision.

Nakku, through her lawyers, had asked court to restrain NIRA from changing her biodata and to compel NRM to maintain her candidature, arguing that she had been unfairly de-nominated after valid nomination. She also claimed that new nominations would render her pending judicial review application meaningless.

But the court held that Nakku had not demonstrated how she would suffer irreparable damage as a result of her de-nomination. “Granting such an order would alter the status quo and render the main applications nugatory as there will be no matter to determine,” the judge added.

Advert: Vote Hon. Kimuli Louis For Youth MP Central Region

NIRA, in its affidavit, argued that Nakku’s attempt to change her birth year from 1994 to 1997 lacked legal basis, noting that the birth certificate she presented was a nullity because it was issued under a repealed law. NRM also told court that it acted lawfully after receiving several petitions questioning her eligibility.

Justice Acelam dismissed Nakku’s application without awarding costs. Her main judicial review and temporary injunction applications remain pending.

READ FULL RULING HERE!

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
(CIVIL DIVISION)

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 655 OF 2025
(ARISING FROM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 654 OF 2025)
(ALL ARISING FROM JUDICIAL REVIEW MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE NO. 27 OF 2025)

FIONA NAKKU — APPLICANT

VERSUS

1. NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION AUTHORITY (NIRA)
2. NATIONAL RESISTANCE MOVEMENT ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

RULING

BEFORE HON. JUSTICE COLLINS ACELAM

Brief Introduction

The Applicant brought this Application by way of Notice of Motion under Article 42 of the Constitution, Sections 32 and 42 of the Judicature Act, Section 98 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 50 Rule 3A & Order 52 Rules 7 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules for orders for:

1. An Interim Mandatory Injunction compelling the 2nd Respondent to maintain the Applicant as the NRM Flag Bearer aspirant for the position of the National Female Youth Member of Parliament.
2. An Interim Injunction restraining the 1st Respondent, its agents, servants, employees or any other third party from altering the Applicant’s date of birth biodata in the National Identification Register.
3. Costs of the Application be provided for.

Grounds in Support of the Application

The grounds in support of the Application are contained in the Affidavit of FIONA NAKKU, the Applicant herein briefly:

1. That the Applicant filed an application for Judicial Review challenging the 2nd Respondent’s decision to de-nominate her as the NRM aspirant from the position of the National Female Youth Member of Parliament.
2. That the Applicant also filed an application for a Temporary Injunction.
3. That both the Judicial Review Cause and Temporary Injunction Application are pending hearing before this Honourable Court.
4. That on the 18th day of August 2025, the 2nd Respondent served the Applicant a letter wherein it made an administrative decision to de-nominate the Applicant as the NRM flag bearer aspirant of the National Youth Member of Parliament.
5. That the aforementioned correspondences indicate that the political position the Applicant contested for is vacant and will be subject to future nominations by the Respondent.
6. That unless restrained by this Honourable Court, there is imminent danger of the 2nd Respondent conducting fresh elections and nominating another NRM Member to replace the Applicant as the new flag bearer aspirant.
7. That the aforementioned nominations will render the Judicial Review Application nugatory.
8. That this is a matter urgent in nature, the application has been made in good faith, the Applicants are not guilty of dilatory conduct, it is in the interest of justice, saving court’s time and resources to grant this application as sought to countermond any future litigation on the same matter.

Grounds in Opposition

In opposition to the Application, BAHEMIJKA JOHN IOA, Manager Compliance and Enforcement of National Identification and Registration Authority, the 1st Respondent, deponed an affidavit on grounds that the instant application is incompetent and devoid of merit as it does not disclose a prima facie case against the respondent and there are no serious questions of law to be tried in the main cause. He further adds that it is the mandate of the 1st Respondent to verify and authenticate information relating to the registration and identification of persons.

That the 1st Respondent received a complaint from ABNO Advocates vide letter dated 11th July, 2025 regarding an irregular change of the Applicant’s date of birth on the National Identification Register to which it reviewed and re-evaluated the Applicant’s application for change of particulars and found that the Application lacked sufficient evidence to support it.

Further, that the Applicant registered for a National ID on the 29th day of December 2014 in Nangwe Modibira village, Southwest Ward, Western Division, Busia Municipality in Busia District and in the said Application for a National Identity card, the Applicant stated her date of birth as 20th December, 1994 in her first enrolment form known as NSIS FORM 1.

That on the 22nd April 2025, the Applicant herein made an application to change her biodata specifically her date of birth from 20th December 1994 to 20th July 1997. That the Applicant lodged with the 1st Respondent for change of her date of birth implying her intention was to change her date of birth not to correct her date of birth and that the birth certificate pleaded and attached by the Applicant is flawed and thus a nullity as it was issued under a repealed law of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1965 whereas the registration of birth in Uganda today is governed by the Registration of Persons Act Cap. 332.

That the purported birth certificate has no legal effect and was unlawfully issued by the Senior Town Clerk, Busia Town Council contrary to the Registration of Persons Act Cap. 332. He concludes that the prevailing status quo is that the 1st Respondent has in exercise of her mandate reverted the Applicant’s bio data information regarding her date of birth in the National Identification Register to 20th December, 1994.

The 2nd Respondent also filed in an Affidavit in Reply deponed by ENOCH BARATA, the Director Legal Services of the 2nd Respondent, opposing this Application briefly on grounds that the 2nd Respondent received several complaints and petitions against the nomination of the Applicant as a National Female Youth Member of Parliament on the basis of her age, that her correct date of birth is 20th December 1994 as opposed to 20th July 1997.

That as a result, on the 12th August 2025, the 2nd Respondent’s Chairman Electoral Commission wrote to the Applicant and some of the complainants inviting them for a hearing on the 18th August, 2025 wherein the Applicant was informed of her de-nomination on the basis of a letter from the 1st Respondent indicating that the Applicant does not qualify to contest for youth positions as per Section 1 of the National Youth Council Act, Cap. 114 which defines a youth as a person between the age of 18 years and 30 years.

He adds that the Applicant was granted an opportunity to be heard before it made its decision thus, she does not have a prima facie case with a probability of success at trial. He concludes that granting this Application would undermine the interest of the 2nd Respondent and the Application does not meet any condition necessary for the grant of an interim mandatory injunction hence ought to be dismissed.

Representation

During the trial, the Applicant was represented by lawyers from M/S Muwemo & Co. Advocates and Solicitors, and the 1st Respondent was represented by the Attorney General’s Chambers. The 2nd Respondent was represented by Mr. Sebuulu Usaomo.

Issue

Whether the Applicant has satisfied all grounds to warrant the grant of the Interim Mandatory Injunction against the 2nd Respondent and an Interim Injunction against the 1st Respondent.

Determination

The Applicant’s counsel submitted that there is a pending application for a temporary injunction and an application for judicial review on record, this is not disputed. Parties made both oral and written submissions in respect of this application which shall be considered in this ruling without necessarily reproducing them here.

The Applicant instituted this Application inter alia seeking a mandatory interim injunction compelling the 2nd Respondent to maintain the Applicant as the NRM flag bearer aspirant for the position of the National Female Youth MP and an interim injunction restraining the 1st Respondent from altering the Applicant’s date of birth and bio data in the National Identification Register.

An application for an interim injunction seeks a discretionary remedy. It is settled law that all judicial discretions must be exercised judicially and judiciously. An application for interim or ex-parte injunction may be properly made in a case of extreme urgency. It should only be used when the case is one of real urgency requiring immediate relief. The order is meant to forestall irreparable injury to the applicant’s legal or equitable right. See: Madubuike vs. Madubuike (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt.719) 689 at 709.

The principal factors to consider in an application for interim injunctions as per the case of Sound Cosmetics Uganda Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Customs URA and Commissioner General URA, HCMA No. 424 of 2017 are as follows:

a) The need to maintain the status quo.
b) The need to preserve the right of the applicant to be heard in the main/substantive application.
c) The need to avert the occurrence of irreparable injury likely to be suffered by the applicant.
d) And in case of doubt as to who should be granted the order, the balance of convenience is resolved in favour of the person likely to suffer more if the order is not granted.

The most important pre-condition is for the Applicant to establish that she has legal rights which are threatened and ought to be urgently protected. See; Ojukwu vs Governor of Lagos State (1986) 3 NWLR (Pt.26) 39.

Going through the supporting affidavit, I am of the view that the Applicant has identified a legal right which she seeks to protect. However, grant of the orders sought is at the discretion of the court, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of a particular case and more specifically the extent of injury or inconvenience caused to the Applicant by the conduct of the Respondent and the extent of injury or hardship that will be caused to the Respondent by the grant. See: Roshido Abdul Hanali and Another vs. Sulaimon Adrisi, HCMA No.0077 of 2017.

Court’s Analysis

On maintaining the status quo:
The Applicant contended that after a successful nomination, she was summoned to NRM headquarters on 18th August 2025, where she was informed she had been de-nominated due to alteration of her biodata by NIRA. She argued that unless restrained, NRM would conduct fresh nominations.

However, the Court found that the 1st Respondent had already reverted her date of birth to 20th December 1994, disqualifying her under the National Youth Council Act. “The status quo sought to be maintained by the Applicant has already been altered by the 1st Respondent. Therefore, as of the instant Application, the situation has already been overtaken by events hence this condition fails.”

On irreparable injury:
The Applicant claimed that new nominations would render her judicial review nugatory. The Court held that she had not shown how she would suffer irreparable damage. “Granting such an order to compel the Respondents would essentially alter the status quo and render the main applications nugatory as there will be no matter to determine.”

Decision

“In light of the above findings, the applicant has not satisfied the grounds for the grant of the orders sought. This Application is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.”

Dated and Delivered via ECCMIS this 23rd day of August, 2025

COLLINS ACELAM, JUDGE.

FIONA NAKU-RULING-INTERIM_250823_152859