The death of former Busiro South MP Charles Matovu has ended his challenge to Kenan Opio’s election, with lawyer Erias Tumwebaze explaining why the proceedings cannot ordinarily be continued by the deceased’s family or estate.
The death of former Busiro South Member of Parliament Charles Matovu has brought into focus the legal implications of a petitioner dying before an election dispute is resolved, with lawyer Erias Tumwebaze explaining that the case abates under the applicable election laws.
Tumwebaze said that although the death of a petitioner brings the proceedings to an end, liability for legal costs already incurred may remain under the law. He added that family members and legal representatives cannot simply take over the prosecution of the deceased’s election petition.
Matovu died on October 22, 2026, while challenging the election of National Resistance Movement (NRM) candidate Kenan Opio in the High Court in Entebbe.
The former legislator, who represented Busiro South in the 11th Parliament on the National Unity Platform (NUP) ticket, had challenged Opio’s victory over alleged electoral irregularities and non-compliance with electoral laws during the January 2026 elections.
The substantive hearing of the petition had begun on October 16, six days before Matovu’s death, leaving the challenge unresolved.
Tumwebaze explained that election petitions are governed by specific legal provisions that determine how proceedings are handled when a petitioner dies.
Under Section 86 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, an election petition abates upon the death of the sole petitioner or all the petitioners. The provision means the proceedings cannot ordinarily continue through the deceased petitioner’s administrator or legal representative.
“The legal representative or the administrator of the petitioner can only be held liable for the costs of the election petition. But they have no right of continuing with an election petition,” Tumwebaze said.
The law also provides that abatement does not extinguish liability for costs previously incurred. The precise liability for those costs depends on the applicable provisions and circumstances of the case.
Tumwebaze said the law treats the death of a respondent differently from that of a petitioner. Where the respondent dies, the petition does not automatically abate on that ground and may continue in accordance with the applicable law.
He added that election petitions involving local government positions, including councillors and chairpersons, are also governed by specific provisions under the Local Governments Act.
The lawyer acknowledged that the automatic termination of a petition following the death of a sole petitioner can leave electoral grievances without a substantive judicial determination.
However, he distinguished election petitions from other civil cases, including land disputes and claims for debts, where proceedings may continue through an administrator or legal representative if the cause of action survives.
Election petitions, he explained, are subject to special legal provisions and strict timelines intended to ensure that electoral disputes are resolved within a prescribed period.
“But for election petitions, they are special. They have the law which applies to them and if the petitioner is the sole petitioner and they die, the petition abates,” Tumwebaze said.
He added that the law seeks to prevent election disputes from continuing indefinitely.
Matovu’s death has brought these provisions into focus because his petition had already entered the substantive hearing stage. His allegations against Opio had not been determined by a final judgment before his death.
The case highlights the distinction between the right to pursue an election petition and liability for costs incurred during the proceedings.
While the law provides for the abatement of a petition following the death of a sole petitioner, the electoral grievances raised in the case may remain without a substantive judicial determination.