Big Story: NRM Secures Court Victory As EALA Nomination Case Is Dismissed With Costs

By Frank Kamuntu 

The High Court in Kampala has dismissed an application challenging the National Resistance Movement (NRM)’s nomination process for candidates seeking election to the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA), ruling that the matter was not amenable to judicial review and awarding costs against the applicant.

In the ruling delivered on May 29, 2026, by Justice Bernard Namanya, the court upheld a preliminary objection raised by the respondents. The NRM and the Chairman of the NRM Electoral Commission, Dr. Tanga Odoi, were represented by counsel Sebuufu Usaama of K&K Advocates, who successfully argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust the party’s internal dispute resolution mechanisms before seeking intervention from the High Court.

The application had been filed by Nsubuga Jack, also known as Mandela, who sought to challenge the NRM Electoral Commission’s nomination of candidates to fill vacancies in EALA following the election of former EALA representatives Denis Namara and James Kakooza as Members of Parliament on January 15, 2026.

Nsubuga contended that upon their election to Parliament, Namara and Kakooza automatically ceased to be members of EALA under Section 7(3)(c) of the East African Legislative Assembly Elections Act, 2011. He argued that the NRM Electoral Commission had irregularly commenced the process of nominating replacements before the new Parliament had been sworn in and sought court orders setting aside the nominations and directing the commission to restart the process after the commencement of the new parliamentary term.

However, the respondents opposed the application through an affidavit sworn by NRM Director of Legal Services, Barata Enoch. The affidavit stated that although the nomination process had initially been commenced in accordance with the NRM Parliamentary Caucus Rules of Procedure, it had subsequently been suspended pending the swearing-in of the newly elected Members of Parliament.

During the hearing conducted on May 11, 2026, Nsubuga represented himself while the respondents were represented by Sebuufu Usaama as already mentioned above. Both parties filed written submissions for consideration by the court.

*Court Examines Scope Of Judicial Review*

Justice Namanya’s ruling focused primarily on whether the dispute was suitable for determination through judicial review proceedings.

The judge reiterated that judicial review is concerned with supervising the legality, fairness, and rationality of decisions made by public bodies and officials. He emphasized that courts exercising judicial review jurisdiction do not determine the merits of decisions or substitute their own decisions for those of bodies legally empowered to make them.

Citing established principles of administrative law and previous judicial authorities, the court noted that judicial review is generally limited to examining whether a decision-making body acted lawfully, reasonably, and in accordance with procedural fairness.

*Failure To Exhaust Internal Remedies*

A central issue in the case was whether the applicant had exhausted available internal dispute resolution mechanisms within the NRM before approaching the court.

The applicant argued that he had already raised his concerns through letters addressed to the National Chairman of the NRM and the Chairman of the NRM Electoral Commission. However, the court found that these actions did not amount to exhaustion of the party’s established dispute resolution procedures.

Justice Namanya observed that the evidence before court showed the nomination process had been suspended and had not yet been concluded. Consequently, any challenge to that process was premature.

“The nomination process was incomplete, and any complaint arising from that process was, at the material time, premature,” the judge held.

The court further found that even if the applicant remained dissatisfied after the completion of the nomination exercise, the proper avenue for pursuing his grievance would be the NRM Election Disputes Tribunal established under the NRM Election Regulations, 2025.

The judge relied on Regulation 42 of the NRM Election Regulations, which establishes the Election Disputes Tribunal, and Regulation 43(9), which provides that decisions of the tribunal are binding and final on the parties.

Justice Namanya also cited the decision in Niwabiine & Others v National Resistance Movement & Another (2022), where the court emphasized the need for party members and stakeholders to utilize internal party mechanisms before seeking judicial intervention in political party disputes.

*Application Dismissed With Costs*

Having found that the applicant failed to exhaust the available internal remedies, the court concluded that the matter was improperly before it and therefore not amenable to judicial review.

“I find and hold that the applicant, being under a legal obligation to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanisms provided under the NRM Elections Regulations before approaching this court, failed to do so,” Justice Namanya ruled.

The court consequently upheld the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and dismissed the application in its entirety.

Justice Namanya further ordered that Nsubuga Jack alias Mandela pay the respondents’ legal costs pursuant to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.