Chelangat v The Electral Commission & Another (Election Petition 6 of 2021) [2021] UGHC 70 (26 October 2021)

**THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA**

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT MBALE**

**ELECTION PETITION NO. 06 OF 2021**

**TETE CHELANGAT EVERLINE :::::::::::::::::::::::::: PETITIONER**

**VERSUS**

1. **THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION** 2. **CHEMUTAI EVERLYN :::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENTS**

**BEFORE: HON. LADY JUSTICE CORNELIA KAKOOZA SABIITI**

**JUDGMENT**

1. **Background** 2. The Petitioner, Ms. Tete Chelangtat Everline, Ms. Chebeni Paula and the 2nd Respondent, Ms. Chemutai Everlyn, contested for woman member of Parliament for Bukwo district in the elections held on 14th January 2021. The 1st Respondent returned and gazetted the 2nd Respondent winner thereof with 16603 votes. The Petitioner came in second position with 15585 votes and Ms. Chebeni polled 415 votes. 3. The Petitioner contests the validity of the 2nd Respondent’s said election contending that the election was not conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the electoral laws and that noncompliance thereof affected the results of the election in a substantial manner. The 1st Respondent failed in its duty to ensure that the election was transparent, free and fair and the Petitioner was informed by her agents that the 1st Respondent’s presiding officers cancelled, altered and changed results on declaration of result forms at Kapkoloswo, Matimbei, Grace primary school and Kokorwo polling stations which substantially affected the results of the entire election warranting its nullification. 4. Further the Petitioner contends that the 1st Respondent’s presiding officers connived with the 2nd Respondent and her agents to procure prohibited persons to vote, facilitated impersonation of voters, multiple voting, voting by unregistered persons, and intimidation of her agents at Kapkoloswo, Kapteterwa, Chemuron, Molol, Kokorwo, Lamaywo, Kapkobor trading centre, Grace primary school, Matimbei and many other polling stations. The 2nd Respondent personally or through her agents with her knowledge and consent gave money and other gifts to voters with intent to cause them to vote for her and refrain from voting for the Petition. 5. The Petitioner therefore seeks; a declaration that the election for woman member of Parliament for Bukwo district was not held in accordance with the provisions of the electoral laws, which non compliance affected the results in a substantial manner; a declaration that the 2nd Respondent personally or through her agents with her knowledge and consent committed electoral offences and illegal practices with the intent to cause voters to vote her and refrain from voting the Petitioner; a declaration that the 2nd Respondent was not validly elected as Bukwo district woman representative to Parliament; an order annulling or setting aside the election of the 2nd Respondent as Bukwo district woman representative to Parliament; a declaration that the Petitioner was validly elected as Bukwo district woman representative to Parliament; in the alternative an order for a new election; and costs of the Petition. 6. **Issues** 7. The following issues were agreed upon for determination under the joint scheduling memorandum: 1. Whether the Parliamentary elections for Bukwo district woman member of Parliament were conducted in non-compliance with electoral laws and principles thereunder. 2. If so, whether the non-compliance affected the results of the election in a substantial manner. 3. Whether the 2nd Respondent personally or through her agents, with her knowledge and consent or approval committed electoral offences and illegal practices during the election for district woman member of Parliament for Bukwo district. 4. What are the remedies available to the parties. 8. **witnesses** 9. Hearing was by affidavit evidence. The petition is supported by 18 affidavits including of the Petitioner. The 1st and 2nd Respondents filed answers opposing the petition in 15 affidavits for the 1st Respondent and 15 for the 2nd Respondent. Both Respondents arguments are in consonance. 10. The Petitioner led evidence through her affidavit in support of the petition, Joseph Chelangat (Petitioner’s husband and tally centre agent), Mutai Sam (polling agent at Grace Primary polling station), Murunga Anthony (registered voter and LC1 Chairperson of Soset village), Matum Gilbert (registered voter), Kurwa Peter (tally center agent), Saik Steven (tally center agent), Boyo Solomon (registered voter at Mokoywet polling station), Satiya Julius (registered voter at Kapkoloswo polling station), Sabilla Simon (registered voter), Sikuku Moses (sub county supervisor), Masilei Difasi (polling agent at Chemuron polling station), Wanjala Evans (polling coordinator at Kapnandi), Wepukhulu Godfrey (agent at Kaptererwo polling station), Kitiyo Fred Maget (tally center agent), Dickson Barasa (polling agent at Mokoywet polling station), Apollo David Wilfred (registered voter), and Kituyi Aneriko (coordinator of agents). They were admitted in evidence as PW1 to PW 18 respectively. 11. The 1st Respondent contends that the entire electoral process including campaigns, polling, counting transmission, tallying, declaration, ascertainment and gazetting were conducted in a free, fair and transparent atmosphere devoid of any complaints from any stake holders. The results obtained by each candidate were counted, declared, tallied, ascertained and gazetted by the 1st Respondent without any alterations. It does not have any knowledge of the allegations contained in the petition of electoral offences of voter bribery, ballot stuffing, falsification, ineligible persons voting, impersonation, multiple voting, chasing of the Petitioner’s agents, making wrong returns as none were reported to its agents either before or during the election period. In the alternative, the 1st Respondent contends that even if there were to be any non-compliance, it did not affect the outcome of the election in a substantial manner. The 1st Respondent therefore prays that the petition be dismissed with costs. 12. The 1st Respondent led evidence through the affidavits of Tumwijuke Joseph (returning officer for Bukwo district), Kwemoi Elijah (presiding officer for Kapkoloswo polling station), Mutai Vitalis (Kaptererwa subcounty election supervisor), Emily Cherop (presiding officer Kapkobor polling station), Kwemoi Fred Cheywa (polling assistant and BVVK machine operator at Chemuron polling station), Chelangat David (polling assistant and BVVK machine operator at Kapnandi polling station), Wanjala Denis (presiding officer for Kaptererwa polling station), Kipyeko Job (presiding officer Kokorwo polling station), Bashir Abdallah (polling assistant and BVVK machine operator at Makoywet polling station), Kipsang Cornel (presiding officer for Lomaywo polling station), Ruto Alvin (presiding officer Matimbei polling station), Kiplangat Phillip (presiding officer for Molol polling station), Achesang Betty (presiding officer for Soset polling station), Juma francis (presiding officer for Grace primary school polling station), Kwemoi Levi (presiding officer Kamokony primary school polling station). They were admitted in evidence as RW1 to RW15 respectively. 13. The second Respondent contends that she was validly elected as woman member of Parliament for Bukwo district having lawfully obtained the highest number of valid votes. The Petitioner has no genuine grievances as the election was conducted in accordance with the principles laid down in the electoral laws. If there was any non-compliance which is denied, it was minor, expected in any electoral process and did not in anyway affect the results/outcome of the election in a substantial manner. There was no voter obstruction or disenfranchisement. The allegations of delay and interference with the collection of results are false. She did not in any way connive with the presiding officers or any election official to interfere with the voting process and did not commit any electoral offences. 14. There were no cases of impersonation, multiple voting, voting by un authorized and/or unregistered persons, intimidation of Petitioner’s agents at Kapkoloswo, Chemuron, Molol, Kokorwo, Lamaywo, Kapkobor trading centre, Grace primary school, Matimbei or in any other polling station in Bukwo district. Whereas there was a complainant’s desk on all polling stations in the constituency, no single event of such occurrence was ever reported and recorded in the complaint book which makes the Petitioner’s allegations an afterthought. The 2nd Respondent therefore prays that the petition be dismissed with costs. 15. The 2nd Respondent led evidence through her affidavit in support of her answer, Masika Elijah Ndinyo (her chief campaigning agent), Sakajja Martin (driver and registered voter at Kaptali polling station), Cheptegei Benna (a registered voter at Kamutungom church polling station), Kiprotich Dismas (agent at Kapkoloswo polling station), Wanjala Michael ( registered voter at Makoywet LC Meeting Point polling station), Chepkwobor Richard (registered voter at Makoywet and father of the 2nd Respondent), Kibet Edward (an agent at Kapnandi Upper polling station), Wabuukesa Juma Tyson (polling supervisor for Kapnandi town council), Chele Samuel Cheywa (agent at Chemron polling station), Ngeywo Jacob Kalas (agent at Grace primary school), Wamalwa Oscar (agent at Kaptererwa polling station), Cheptoyek Wicliff (agent at Matimbei polling station), Kiptoo Silas Musani (registered voter at Soset polling station), and Kiprop Ben (polling agent at Kokorwo polling station). They were admitted in evidence as RW16 to RW30. 16. PW1 testified that at Chemuron polling station, ballots counted exceeded the registered voters. At Molol, votes cast exceeded the ballot papers issued. At Kapkoloswo and Matimbei, there were excess voters. At Lamaywo, all 550 ballots were declared spoilt and none of the votes counted. Polling stations were allowed to stay open and unregistered persons were allowed to vote upto 10:00am and midnight. The 1st Respondent officers engaged in tallying of votes in the dark without the participation of her agents. She maintained that there was cancellation, alteration and change of results on the declaration forms by the 1st Respondent’s agents at Kapkoloswo, Matimbei, Grace primary school and Kokorwo polling stations which affected the results in an a substantial manner. Ballot papers were issued to paid individuals to vote for the 2nd Respondent on behalf of dead persons. The 2nd Respondent through her agents with her knowledge, consent and approval directly and indirectly engaged in acts of voter bribery to at Kaptererwo station. Her agents at Kaptererwo were threatened, assaulted and chased away from the station. PW8 and PW10 testified that there was a biometric machine at Mokoywet but it was not used to verify the voters, the 2nd Respondent voted for the 2nd time and there was multiple voting. 17. RWI maintained that its only persons whose names and other particulars appeared on the voters’ register and properly identified that were issued with ballot paper and allowed to vote. The entire process was transparently conducted in the presence of all stake holders. All the candidate’s agents who were present dully and freely signed the declaration forms. The 1st Respondent has no knowledge of commission of electoral offences of intimidation. RW2 testified that voters were identified though use of national identification card, photographic national voter registers and by use of BVVK machines purposed to double check one’s voter ability and to prevent multiple voting. The machines worked well without complaints arising from the candidate’s agents and/or other stake holders. 18. The declaration forms for Kapkoloswo polling station were not altered as claimed by the Petitioner and if there were any, such alterations or erasures, they were manipulated by the Petitioner’s agents to unnecessarily cast doubt on the 2nd Respondent’s victory. At the closure of the polling, he issued clean copies of the declaration of results to the agents and transmitted the same to the tally centre. Further that the results tallied were the same as those declared at the polling station and as such the Petitioner polled 82 while the 2nd Respondent polled 610 votes. Valid votes were 701, invalid 09, spoilt 00 which renders the total number of votes cast to be 710 which figures are in tandem with the tally sheet. Generally, the results declared at the polling stations tallied and transmitted for gazetting by the 1st Respondent reflected the true will of the voters and the Petitioner did not lodge any complaints. The national voter’s registers used for identification of voters at a particular polling station are secured in black ballot boxes upon closure of poll. PW9’s assertion of having obtained a copy of the register from the district registrar’s office on the next day is false. 19. RW4 testified that at Kapkobor trading centre, the Petitioner polled 27 votes while the 2nd Respondent polled 109 and Chebeni Paula polled 07 votes. The total valid votes were 143, total rejected 00, total ballots issued were 350 and the total unused was 207 votes. There was no alterations of the Petitioner’s results and the Petitioner’s agent Chivisy Tom duly acknowledged the results by signing on the declaration forms. RW5 testified that at Chemuron, the Petitioner polled 02 votes while the 2nd Respondent polled 106 votes, information he is privy to because he sat on the same table with the presiding officer. The results were not altered and if there are any such alterations, they were manipulated by the Petitioner’s agents. He denied any multiple voting or other malpractices and any knowledge of Milka Sabila. The results declared for Kaptererwa polling station were those polled by the candidates. The Petitioner polled 69 votes while the 2nd Respondent polled 355 votes. There were no reports of voter bribery as alleged and Kurwa Peter did not come to the polling station. PW14 was never chased away from the polling station. 20. It was RW10’s testimony that at Lamaywo polling station, the Petitioner polled 85 votes, 2nd Respondent polled 168 and Chebeni polled 12 votes. The total of valid votes were 268. RW11 testified that at Matimbei polling station, the Petitioner polled 53 votes, 2nd Respondent polled 377 and Chebeni polled 03 votes. There was no tampering with the results. RW12 testified that at Molol polling station the Petitioner polled 159 votes while the 2nd Respondent polled 271 votes and there was no excess voting. RW14 testified that the declaration forms for Grace primary school were not altered as claimed by the Petitioner and any such alterations were manipulated by the Petitioner’s agents to cast doubt on the victory of the 2nd Respondent. 21. According to the results, the total number of voters at Grace primary school is 271 and not 244 as claimed by the Petitioner. RW15 testified that at Kamokony primary school polling station, the Petitioner polled 109 votes while the 2nd Respondent polled 85 votes. Generally, all the 1st Respondent’s witnesses maintain that voters were verified, results transmitted were those obtained and there was no alterations on the declaration forms. They all denied the allegations made by the Petitioner. 22. RW16 denied any alteration of results at Kapkoloswo, Matimbei, Grace primary school and Kokorwo polling station and averred that they were doings of the Petitioner and her agents because the copies her agents gave her did not have any alterations. She also denied the allegations of multiple voting at Chemuron, Molol, Kapkoloswo and Matimbei. The results recorded in the tally sheet correspond with the results announced at the respective polling stations. The allegation that all 550 ballot papers in Lamaywo were spoilt is not true because her DR form copy signed by the Petitioner’s agents does not reflect the same. She denied any connivance with the officials of the 1st Respondent. Voting at most polling stations was concluded between 5pm and 6pm. The signatures of the Petitioner’s agents were not forged on any DR form and Wepukhulu left the polling station on his own accord. Whereas there was a power blackout at the tally centre for about 5 minutes, no one was allowed to enter or leave during that time and it is not true that tallying was done secretly, in the dark without involving the Petitioner’s agents. 23. Further that the allegations of PW2 of falsification of results, wrong tallying and excess voting are false, malicious and outrageous. PW2’s source of information is not known which makes the information hearsay and inadmissible. The packaging lists attached by PW2 are not authentic and cannot be the basis of ascertaining the votes polled by each candidate. It was not true that her votes in Kokorwo primary school had been altered from 122 to 192 because she obtained 192 votes while the Petitioner obtained 33 votes. The DR forms was signed by both their agents. Grace primary school has 271 registered voters and not 244 as claimed by PW2. This can be ascertained from the tally sheet. She denied allegations of reducing votes of any candidate at any polling station as claimed by PW2. She denied allegations of voting in the names of dead people.. She maintained that voting was free, fair, peaceful and transparent. She legitimately won the election. 24. RW17 testified that at Lamaywo, the Petitioner got 85 votes which her polling agent Munyisho Gelbert certified by appending his signature on the DR forms. The tallied results were from tamper proof envelopes that were brought at the tally centre by the presiding officers and the figures tallied is a true reflection of the votes as cast and polled by the respective candidate. The allegations by PW2 regarding Borowon Parish headquarters are untrue because he examined the entries on the tally sheet and there is no difference or falsification of results as both reflect that the Petitioner had 168 votes. It was not clear how PW2 arrived at his figures which are disputed. However even going by his tally the 2nd Respondent overwhelmingly won with over 900 votes and as such, the variations alluded to did not affect the final outcome. 25. RW19 testified that the total number of registered voters at Kapkoloswo polling station is 715 which is above the 701 valid votes cast. The Petitioner obtained 82 votes, the 2nd Respondent obtained 610 votes and the Paula obtained 9 votes. 9 votes were rejected which makes a total of 710 votes. If the votes cast exceeded the total number of registered voters, the electoral commission tally system would automatically reject the entry during tallying. 26. RW24 testified that it was not true that Masilei Difasi ever left Chemuron polling station. Mika Sabila was a wife to RW24’s late brother. It was not true that she had two voter slips or that she was given two ballot papers. The Petitioner got 2 votes, the 2nd Respondent got 106 votes and Chebeni got 5 votes. 27. RW25 testified that the polling assistant at Grace Primary School showed them the updated voter’s register before voting started. The station has 271 registered voters. The 1st Respondent delivered 300 ballot papers and the candidate’s agents counted and confirmed them. A total of 247 votes were cast as valid and there were no invalid votes. There were 53 ballots unused which were returned to the 1st Respondent. After the votes were counted, the 2nd Respondent had polled 199 votes, the Petitioner had 45 votes and Chebeni had 3 votes. It was RW26’s evidence that Wephukhulu left Kaptererwa on his own before results were declared and did not sign the declaration form. The allegation that he was slapped by a police officer is also not true. BBVK machines were used throughout polling. There was no excess voting. After Kituyi Aneriko voted, he never returned to the station. The allegations that he returned after Wephukulu had been chased away are false. 28. RW27 testified that Matimbei has 646 registered voters and the 1st Respondent delivered 650 ballot papers. At the end of voting, there was a total of 437 votes cast at the polling station. The Petitioner polled 53 votes, 2nd Respondent polled 377 votes and Cheben polled 3 votes. The remaining 213 ballot papers were returned to the 1st Respondent. There were 4 invalid votes. The final tally is indicative of the exact occurrences at the polling station. RW28 testified that at Soset polling station, he was verified as a voter by his national identification card and the BVVK machines and it was only those who were verified physically who voted. 29. **Representation** 30. The Petitioner was represented by M/s. Lavoix Advocates. The first Respondent was represented by its legal department and the second Respondent was jointly represented by M/s. Ambrose Tebyasa & Co. Advocates & M/s. Ochieng Associated Advocates. 31. The Petitioner bears the burden to prove to the satisfaction of Court the ground(s) of the petition, if he is to succeed. Section 61(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act provides that this burden is on a balance of probabilities. 32. In **election petition appeal No. 39 of 2011, Acheing Sarah Opendi & Anor v. Ochwo Nyakecho Keziah**, the court held that the standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities but slightly higher though lower than beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence must be cognent, strong and credible.”

**1ssue one- Whether the Parliamentary elections for Bukwo district woman member of Parliament were conducted in non-compliance with electoral laws and principles thereunder.**

1. In rejoinder, the Petitioner raises an objection that although the Respondents submissions appear to have been prepared by both Respondents, a critical view of the same depicts that they were prepared by counsel for the 2nd Respondent and the name of the 1st Respondent was simply looped in. In addition, counsel for the 1st Respondent did not sign the same. Therefore the 1st Respondent has not addressed the allegations made by the Petitioner. The Petitioner also faults the Respondents for having exceed the 20 page limit given in this court’s directive. In a letter dated 3rd October 2021 and filed on 5th October 2021, the 1st Respondent takes ownership of the submissions and clarifies that when the parties appeared for mention before His Worship Eremye James in Mbale High court, they confirmed to court that indeed the submissions were filed by both counsel for the Respondents. I will therefore take the same as having filed by the 1st Respondent as well. 2. The Respondent’s submissions are 33 pages. This violated the directive given by this court. However if the Respondents were to file separate submissions, the combined total number of pages would have been 40. The Petitioner has also not shown any prejudice suffered resulting from the excess pages. For those reasons, I will allow the submissions. 3. In their submissions, the Respondents invited court to take account that the Respondents evidence on all allegations was never challenged by the Petitioner by way of rejoinder. They submitted that the Petitioner who relies on information from her un named agents was never at any of the polling stations in Bukwo and never personally witnessed acts of non-compliance. This makes her evidence hearsay and inadmissible. All the Petitioner’s DR forms were not admitted as exhibits on court record, they were simply given identification numbers as are therefore inadmissible by section 73 to 75 of the evidence Act. In addition the DR forms bear one side without the signature page further casting doubt on their authenticity and credibility. It is settled law that articles for identification are clearly distinguishable from exhibits and do not in law pass as evidence and cannot be relied upon by court. They relied on **Kiyimba Noor v. John Nagenda Mulinde HCCA No. 23 of 2014.** 4. In rejoinder, the Petitioner submitted that she was not omnipresent to simultaneously manifest at each of the over 140 polling stations in Bukwo district. It therefore stands to reason that any violations would be witnessed by her agents and registered voters scattered at various polling stations who deponed affidavits in support and formed part of the petition. He relied on **Mudiobole Abed Nasser v. Mugema Peter, Election Petition 13 of 2016** for the principle that “affidavits that accompany the petition or answer to the petition may contain paragraphs that include hearsay evidence because they may base some of their allegations on information from agents and supporters.” 5. I have read the **Mudiobole case (supra)** which the Petitioner seeks to rely on. In that case, court held that “It is now trite law however those affidavits that accompany the petition or answer to the petition may contain paragraphs that include hearsay evidence because they may base some of their allegations on information from their agents or supporters. Courts however expect the evidence from the witnesses in support to pass the test of hearsay and even that of the Petitioner or Respondent which is purely evidential.” Clearly the Petitioner had quoted half the passage to suit her interest. From the passage, it is easily discernable that the hearsay test still applies even to these affidavits. Therefore, this court will not rely on any averments that do not pass the hearsay test. 6. Regarding the uncertified DR forms, the Petitioner submitted that it would be unrealistic to request for certified copies of the DR forms from the 1st Respondent whom she is accusing of altering and crossing figures on the DR forms to give a win to the 2nd Respondent. He relies on **Election Petition Appeal No. 75 of 2016, Tamale Julius Konde v. Ssenkubuge Isaac & Electoral Commission**. Further that the authorities cited by the Respondents on the admissibility and evidential value of identified documents are distinguishable and inapplicable to the matter before this court because election petitions are unique proceedings that have special considerations predicated on the public nature of an election petition. This court has the discretion to weigh the probative value and relevance of a document identified in light of the facts under examination. The DR forms bear relevance on the matters in dispute before court being the offence of making wrong returns at an election arising from the said alterations 7. **In Mashate Magomu Peter v. Electoral Commission & Anor election petition appeal No. 47 of 2016**, it was held that “DR Forms are public documents. A party wishing to rely on them ought to have them certified as per sections 75 and 76 of the Evidence Act. Without certification such documents cannot prove any fact they seek to prove. The exception in section 64(1) above refers to a scenario where the party seeking to rely on uncertified DR Forms gave notice to the party in possession of the originals requesting for certification and they refused or failed to do as requested. On proving this, court accepts the uncertified copies.” 8. **In Kakooza John Baptist v. Electoral Commission & Anor election petition appeal No. 11 of 2007,** the Supreme court held that “a non-certified DR form cannot be validated by the mere fact that it is annexed to an affidavit. A DR Form is a public document within the meaning of section 73(a) (ii) of the Evidence Act. It requires certification if it is to be presented as an authentic and valid document in evidence. Consequently, I agree with Okello, J. A. where in his lead judgment he opines that Rule 15 of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rules, 1996, does not prohibit or indeed conflict with section 76 of the Evidence Act which provides that the contents of public documents or parts thereof are to be proved by certified copies. I also agree with the learned Justice of Appeal when he opines that the appellant could have provided the uncertified copies of the DR Forms if he had given notice to the Electoral Commission to produce copies of all the declaration forms from the sub-county but it failed to do so. There is no evidence that the appellant had given such notice to the Electoral Commission nor applied through court for the Electoral Commission to produce at the trial the DR Forms for all the polling stations in Kyamuliibwa sub-county” 9. Similarly, the Petitioner has not provided any evidence to show that they applied to the 1st Respondent to have the declaration forms certified and it was refused or that the Petitioner applied through court for the certification and it was still refused. On the other hand, the 1st Respondent has produced certified copies of the DR forms. A comparison between the DR forms attached by the Petitioner and those by the 1st Respondent shows the same results except that there are crossings in the Petitioner’s DR forms. As such, this court can not rely on the DR forms for the Petitioner because they are not certified and the Petitioner has not shown that they tried and failed to get their forms certified. 10. In her written submissions, the Petitioner repeats the averments in paragraph 6 of the petition and contends that the manner in which the election was conducted violated article 61 of the constitution, section 12 of the Electoral Commission Act and sections 27, 32, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 71 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 (1) and 83 of the Parliamentary Act 2005 (as amended). She submits that the 1st Respondent allowed, engineered, deliberately facilitated and failed in its duty to police multiple violations. These infractions and widespread violations of the electoral laws across various polling stations substantially affected the results and muddied the entire electoral process as a sham engineered to arm-twist a victory in favour of the 2nd Respondent.

**Excess and multiple voting**

1. The Petitioner submits that that there was excess voting at Chemuron because the total number of females and males who voted is depicted in the DR form as 124 yet the packing list admitted in evidence as PE2 shows the total voters as 120. The Petitioner submits that at Grace primary school, the total number of votes cast is 247 yet the packing list PE3 attached to the affidavit of PW3 reflects the total voters as 244. The packing list attached to the affidavit of PW3 is not certified and was expunged from the record at scheduling. Indeed it has the total voters as 244 but the correct PE3 which is certified by the secretary of the 1st Respondent on 30th August 202i shows the total number of voters at Grace primary school as 271. 2. At Kapkoloswo polling station, as seen in P. IDI, the total number of males and females who voted is 716 which exceeds the total number of ballot papers counted being 708. On the other hand R1 has a total of females as 409 and males as 299, total valid votes cast as 701 and invalid as 9. The total of ballot papers counted is 708. The petitioner submits that as seen on R1, the correct total ballots counted exceeded the total females and males who voted. The same excess voting is reflected in P. I DI in which number of females and males exceeded the ballots counted. This reflects that there was excess and multiple voting which tainted the integrity of the electoral process and substantially affected the results. It also affirms that the entire electoral process was laced with procuring of prohibited persons to vote, personation, voting by unauthorized persons and other offences relating to voting. A genuine and fairly conducted election process would not have the number of women and men who voted exceed the known registered voters. 3. About Chemuron, the Respondents submit that it is true from the tally sheet exhibit R15 on pages 28-73 attached to the affidavit of the 2nd Respondent that Chemuron has 120 registered voters. However a total of 114 voters appeared and cast their votes with 113 valid votes counted and 1 invalid noted. The tally sheet is interndem with exhibit R3. It is therefore not true that there was excess voting or multiple voting at this polling station as alleged by the Petitioner. 4. About Grace primary school, the Respondents submitted that the packing list which the Petitioner seeks to rely on at page 52 of the Petitioner’s record was expunged and it is very different from the packing list which was exhibited as P3 which leaves the Petitioners’ claim hanging. The total number of registered voters can still be discerned from the tally sheet which is 271 voters. The Petitioner’s allegations regarding this polling station are false and/or misconceived and court should be pleased to reject the same. 5. In reply to Kapkoloswo polling station, the Respondents submit that the Petitioner’s assertion that the total number of males and females who voted is 716 thus exceeding the total number of ballot papers counted which is 708 is false and without factual basis. The Petitioner has failed miserably to prove that there was multiple voting or excess voting as alleged. 6. In rejoinder, the Petitioner submitted that the DR form exhibited as R1 is missing particulars of males and females which would affirm the basis of excess voters. On a balance of probabilities, the missing particulars point to a deliberate filling of forms after the fact. I have looked at R1 which is annexture A to the affidavit of RW2 at page 8 of the 1st Respondent’s index of additional affidavits in support of the answer to the petition. In that form, the total number of females who voted is 409 and the total number of males who voted is 299. Clearly, this submission by the Petitioner is baseless and therefore rejected. 7. PE3 shows that the total number of voters at Grace primary school is 271. R12, the declaration form shows that Chebeni polled 3 votes, the 2nd Respondent polled 199 votes and the Petitioner polled 45 votes which adds upto 247 votes. This is within the total number of voters as indicates in PE3. I am left wondering where PW3 got his packing list from and how the number of 244 was arrived at. This weakens the credibility of PW3’s evidence. The allegations of the Petitioner in regards to Grace primary school are unfounded and therefore rejected. 8. It is true that Chemuron has 120 voters as clearly stated in PE2. R3 shows that Chebeni polled 5 votes, the 2nd Respondent polled 106 votes and the Petitioner polled 2 votes which adds up to 113 votes. This is the same total indicated for total valid votes in R3. There was 1 invalid vote, making a total of 114. Total ballots issued were 150. 150 minus 114 equals to 36, which was the number indicated as unused ballot papers. The total number of females voters is 63 and the males is 51. Again, this adds up to 114. Basing on this, there is no evidence to support the Petitioner’s assertions of excess voting at Chemuron. The same is accordingly rejected. 9. According to PE1, Kapkoloswo has 715 voters. R1 shows that Chebeni obtained 9 votes, the 2nd Respondent obtained 610 votes and the Petitioner obtained 82 votes. These are the figures captured in the tally sheet. The votes make a total of 701 votes. This is the number reflected in R1 as the total number of valid votes. There were 9 invalid votes. This would make a total of 710 votes. However, R1 shows 708 as the total number of ballots counted. The total number of ballots issued is 750. When you subtract 710 from 750, you get 40 which should be the number of unused ballots. However, R1 shows 42 as the number of unused ballots. The total number of females who voted are 409 and the males are 299 making a total of 708. Clearly there were mistakes in filing the declaration form for this polling station. If the above figures are considered, there is a difference of two votes between 708 (the total males and females who voted) and 710 (the total number of votes cast including the invalid). While this a glaring mistake in recording the data, it does not show that it benefited the 2nd Respondent. I am rather given to believe that this was a genuine mistake made by the presiding officer at this station. I therefore have no evidence to support the allegations of excess voting at this station as well. I therefore reject the same.

**Voting for and on behalf of the dead**

1. PW4, PW5, PW9, PW10, PW12, PW13 and PW16 all testified that dead persons were ticked in the voters register as having voted and some voters presented voter slips for the dead people and voted using their identity. They testified that Musika Tom who died on 14th April 2020 and was buried in Mwokojit village; Kitiyo Julius who died on 3rd December 2020, Samuel Bulany who died on 11th September 2015; Sabila who died in 2019; and Monica Chepkobor, the 2nd Respondent’s mother were all ticked as having voted yet they were dead at the time of voting. Complaints in this regard were raise to the presiding officer but nothing was done. Their death certificates were admitted in evidence. 2. RW2 testified that though it is true that Kitiyo Julius passed away, it wasn’t true that his name was ticked on the national voters register among those who voted. No unauthorized persons or dead people voted at the Kapkoloswo polling station. It was not true that PW9 lodged any complaints with him or the polling constable regarding the alleged ticking of names of dead people. The 2nd Respondent and her witnesses also denied there allegations of voting using the identity of dead persons. RW13 testified that the averments about Musika Tom are false. 3. The Petitioner’s allegations are based on copies of voter’s registers which show that the names of these dead people were ticked as having voted or witnesses who allege to have seen voters with other people’s voter’s slips. Again because, these registers were not certified, this court cannot rely on them. Without such evidence, this court is only left with evidence from witnesses who claim to have seen the dead peoples names ticked or peeped behind other voters and saw them with other dead people’s voter’s card. With the Petitioner’s side claiming one thing and the Respondents vehemently denying the same, there is need for additional evidence to support the Petitioner’s allegations. This court is mindful of the fact that witnesses in petitions of this nature are very partisan, they are prone to exaggerations so as to serve the candidate they support. As such, this allegation is not supported by evidence on the record and is accordingly rejected. 4. Election petitions are highly partisan and supporters are likely to go to any length to seek to establish adverse claims and therefore it is important to look for cogent independent and credible evidence to corroborate claims to satisfy Court that the allegations made by the petitioner are true. (**See Kabuusu Moses Wagabo v. Lwaiga Timothy Mutekanga & EC Election Petition No. 15 of 2011**)

**Allowing voting past polling time**

1. The Petitioner and her witnesses claim that voting went on upto 10:00pm and midnight. PW3 testified that voting at Grace primary school went on till 10pm and some people voted more than once. He signed the declaration form by 5:00pm when polling officially closed. PW11 and PW17 testified that at Kaptererwo, voting continued till past 10pm. The Respondents deny this allegation and claim that voting ended by 4Pm and counting commenced which ended by 5Pm. RW14 testified that it was not true that polling closed at 10:00pm. It was closed at 4:00pm after which counting commenced and the results were declaration of results was at 5:00pm. It was RW26’s evidence that voting did not go on until 10:00pm. 2. The Petitioner maintained in her submissions that there was voting past the designated time which the 1st Respondent allowed to carry thereby allowing voting by unauthorised persons. It was in violation of section 29 (2) and (5) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA). In response, the Respondents submitted that the evidence of the Petitioner is unbelievable when compared to that of the Respondents and the declaration forms which clearly show the time. In rejoinder, the Petitioner referred this court to R1, the DR form for Kapkoloswo which was clocked at 7:07 pm; R6 the DR form for Kokorwo which is clocked at 18:04 pm; and R9 the DR form for Matimbei which is clocked at 6:11pm. This according to the Petitioner shows that voting went on past 5pm. 3. Section 29 (2) of the PEA provides that “At every polling station, polling time shall commence at seven o’clock in the morning and close at five o’clock in the afternoon.” Subsection 5 provides that “if at the official hour of closing the poll in subsection (2) there are any voters in the polling station, or in the line of voters under subsection (3) of section 30 who are qualified to vote and have not been able to do so, the polling station shall be kept open to enable them to vote; but no person who is not actually present at the polling station or in the line of voters at the official hour of closing shall be allowed to vote, even if the polling station is still open when he or she arrives.” 4. Section 47 (1) of the PEA provides that “votes cast at a polling station shall be counted at the polling station immediately after the presiding officer declares the polling closed and the votes cast in favour of each candidate shall be recorded separately in accordance with this Part of this Act.” 5. Clearly, section 29(2) is to the effect that voting should not go on beyond 5pm. Subsection 5 creates an exception where there are voters at the station or in line who qualify to vote but have not voted by 5pm. These provisions do not say that counting of the votes should end by 5pm as well. The counting is addressed by section 47(1) which provides that votes shall be counted immediately the presiding officer declares polling closed. It is therefore humanly impossible for voting and counting to have ended by 5pm and it is not a requirement of the law. Voting ends before counting commences. To my understanding, the time on these declaration forms shows when the returning officer signed the forms after counting the votes and entering them in the forms and not when voting ended. It also shows that the allegations by the Petitioner are unfounded because voting did not go upto 10pm or midnight as claimed. This was a calculated exaggeration. As such, the allegation does not have merit and is rejected**.**

**The offence of making wrong returns at an elecction**

1. PW2 testified that in Kapkoloswo, there were 716 persons who voted yet the parish has only 714 registered voters. In addition the total number of ballots plus invalids was 710 which suggests deliberate additions to ensure a win for the 2nd Respondent. At Chemuron, the registered voters are only 120 yet the ballots counted were 124. At Molol, the votes cast exceeded the number of ballots issued. In Kokorwo, the results for the 2nd Respondent were altered in numbers and words. The 122 was altered to 192 though they failed to alter the words on the DR forms. Still in Kokorwo, the total number of votes cast was 205 and not 225 as indicated. When invalid ballots are added, the total number of votes cast was 209 not 229 as falsely and fraudulently indicated in the DR forms. Kokorwo was issued with 229 ballots which were allegedly used yet the DR form indicates 71 unused ballots which points to errors in tallying and schemes to increase the 2nd Respondent’s votes to win. At Grace primary, the DR reflects alterations to increase votes for the 2nd Respondent. There was excess voting with 247 votes cast yet the station has only 244 registered voters. 2. The DR forms for Matimbei reflects errors in tallying. The total number of votes cast does not tally with the summary which reflects 392 votes. In addition, the ballots issued being 650 minus 397 ballots cast, the unused ballots would be 253 and not 213 as reflected in the DR form where an additional 40 votes were given to the 2nd Respondent. For Kapkobor trading centre, the DR form reflected 29 votes which were altered to 27 to the detriment of the Petitioner. At Borowon Subcounty, the DR forms had the Petitioner collecting 168 votes yet the tally form used on 15th January for declaration had the Petitioner with 138 reducing the votes of the Petitioner. At Komokoyon the DR form had 119 votes for the Petitioner yet the new tally form had 109 votes which reduced the Petitioner’s votes by 10. At Chemuron and Kapnandi, the DR had 12 votes for the Petitioner but the tally form had 2 votes for the Petitioner. At Sosho, The DR form had 201 votes for the Petitioner but the tally form had 102 votes. The 2nd Respondent was announced to have gotten 16,603 votes yet the actually tally comes to 16,541 which gave her an additional 62 votes. The Petitioner was reflected to have 15,585 votes yet she got 15,642 votes. The wrong tallying and recording of results substantially altered them in favour of the 2nd Respondent. 3. The Petitioner submitted that this breach is embodied in the altered declaration of results for various stations characterised by crossings of figures and words that aren’t countersigned, reduction of the Petitioner’s votes and increase of the 2nd Respondent’s votes. Further that R9 is missing material facts being the total number of valid votes cast, total number of votes counted with a different number of males and females who voted from what is recorded on P. ID 5. At Kokorwo the total number of females and males who voted came upto 229 which tallied with the total number of ballots issued to the station. It is therefore interesting that after all the 229 ballots were used up, there was still a total of 71 unused ballots as reflected in R6. These alterations benefitted the 2nd Respondent which affected the results in a substantial manner. 4. In response, the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner never pleaded the alleged cancellation, alteration and change of results on the DR forms for Kapkoloswo, Matimbei, Grace primary school and Kolorwo polling stations. As such she is not barred by the provisions of Order 6 rule 7 from leading evidence on matter which is not pleaded. Nonetheless, the Petitioner’s claims are based on speculation and imagination. PW2 does not attach evidence of the changed results nor state the source of his information since he could not have been at all the polling stations. He does not support his computation with any authentic and certified copies of either the DR form or tally sheet. Even with his own tally PW2 confirms that the 2nd Respondent. R9 contains the votes polled by each candidate and the invalid votes which is the basic information required to be entered on the form as accountability is done in respect of each candidate’s score. Further that the format provided in the 2nd schedule of the PEA does not provide for females and males, which inclusion is done administratively by the 2nd Respondent. 5. In rejoinder, the Petitioner submitted that she pleaded this ground in paragraphs 6 a) (iii), (vi), (viii) and b) (xvii) of the petition. The alterations of results are evident on the Petitioner’s documents marked P. ID1, P. ID2, P. ID3 along with P. ID 5. The identified documents satisfy the best evidence rule in addition to being relevant and having probative value to the issues in contention before court. The DR forms used in the 2021 elections at the bottom bear the note that “the presiding officer should ensure that all information is duly filled and signed.” 6. It is not true that the Petitioner did not plead the offence of cancellation, alterations or change of results. She repeatedly mentioned and alluded to the offence in the paragraphs she highlights but also through her affidavit in support of the Petition. 7. As earlier explained, this court will not rely on uncertified declaration forms. As such the Petitioner’s allegations of alterations of results are not supported by documentary evidence and therefore rejected. Turning to the other allegations, PW2 contends that at Molol, votes cast exceeded number of ballots issued. R10, the declaration form for Molol shows that Chebeni polled 1 vote, the 2nd Respondent polled 271 and the Petitioner polled 159 which adds upto 431. There was 1 invalid vote and 1 spoilt vote. This all makes a total of 433 votes. The station was issued with 600 votes which makes this assertion baseless. 8. RW8 testified that at Kokorwo polling station the Petitioner polled 33 votes while the 2nd Respondent polled 192 votes. Chebeni polled 00 votes. Total valid votes were 225, rejected votes were 04 and total ballots issued were 229. Total unused were 71 and total issued were 300 votes. He erred in recording the total ballots to be 229 but the rest was correctly captured. He maintained that there was no excess voting. RW29’s testimony was to the effect that Kokorwo polling station has 269 registered voters and the Respondent delivered 300 ballot papers. At the end of voting, there was 229 used ballots and 71 unused papers. The Petitioner polled 33 votes, the 2nd Respondent polled 192 votes and Chebeni polled 00 votes. There was no cancellation, alteration and change of results. 9. R6 is the declaration form for Kokorwo. It shows that Chebeni didn’t get any vote, the 2nd Respondent got 192 votes and the Petitioner got 33 votes. This adds up to 225 votes. There were 4 invalid votes which adds upto 229, which is the number indicted as the ballot papers issued to the station. Basing on the testimony of RW8 and RW9, there were errors made when filling R6. 10. R9 the declaration form for Matimbei shows that Chebeni obtained 3 votes, the 2nd Respondent obtained 377 and the Petitioner obtained 53 which totals to 433. The form does not show the total valid votes cast for candidates, total number of ballot papers counted and spoilt ballots. It however shows that there were 4 invalid votes and that 650 ballots were issued to the station and 213 remained unused. 650 ballots minus 433 equals to 217 un used ballots. It was also an error to register 213 as unused and not fill in the other information that is missing especially due to the requirement of transparency and accountability in election matters. At page 9/13 of the tally sheet, the Petitioner is reflected to have polled 168 votes at Borowon Parish headquarters. This allegation is therefore unfounded. Similarly, at page 5/13 the tally sheet reflects that the Petitioner obtained 201 votes at Sosho. The allegation is also baseless. R13, the declaration form for Kamokony primary school clearly shows that the Petitioner polled 109 votes. As such the allegation in regard to that polling station is baseless and accordingly rejected. 11. As correctly observed by the Respondents, PW2 does not state the source of his information or the final tally. However in paragraphs 34 and 35 of his affidavit, having factored in the deductions he presumes are necessary, he stills points out that the 2nd Respondent would have won the election since he assigns her the highest number of votes of 16 541 against the Petitioner’s 15, 642.

**The offence of unauthorised voting and personation.**

1. The Petitioner submitted that there was impersonation of persons that were outside Uganda and that there was procuring of unresgistered persons to vote. In paragraph 14 of his affidavit, PW10 lists names of persons whom he alleged had travelled to Kenya but were indicated to have voted. PW13 also testified that he witnessed the 2nd Respondent who had already voted Mokoywet vote at Kapnandi. However, RW19 testified that the people named by Satiya Julius as absent were present and that he personally saw Cheptopot Julius Kamukony lining to vote at about 9:00am. 2. The Petitioner does not adduce evidence by way of affidavit, travel documents or otherwise of these persons who are said to have been out of the country that voted. Such evidence would have buttressed the otherwise partisan evidence. Without such, this remains a blanket claim that has not been proved. 3. PW2, PW7 and PW15 testified that while at the tally centre, the district registrar announced that the generator was running low on fuel and that power was about to go out. At 3:00am, there was a black out. PW2 averred that he had a torch which he powered and shone a fairly bright light in the town hall. They saw four men carrying large envelopes that resembled ballot polling materials being brought into the hall and taken to the table of the district registrar. They asked the district registrar to stop tallying till when the power came back but he refused and told PW2 that the light from the laptop was enough to enter the results. When the power was restored, PW7 recognized the men as campaign agents of the 2nd Respondent from Kaptererwo called Mutai Vitalis and subcounty supervisors from Kapkoloswo, Kapnandi & Kapnandi Town Council polling stations. PW2 averred that when the power returned the district registrar simply announced the 2nd Respondent as winner yet by the time power went off, the Petitioner was leading during the counting. 4. It was RW3’s evidence that at around 2:00am, power went off and the returning officer announced that nobody should enter or leave the tally centre until power is restored. The tallying of results was stopped until the generator was switched on and it resumed. During the black out, tallying of results did not proceed as alleged and he did not hand over anything to the returning officer or tallying clerks because all materials in his possession had been submitted earlier. There was no laptop or torch used for tallying at all. The results were correctly tallied and those declared were polled at respective polling stations. There were no alterations, crossings and/or changes and each candidate got what they polled. 5. RW17 testified that at the tally centre, all the candidates’ agents were present and the Petitioner was represented by her chief agent Salik Steven and husband PW2. The district registrar would pick the tamper proof envelopes, raise it up for all the agents to see that it was sealed, read the name of the polling station and then proceed to open the same transparently and in front of all the agents and those present in the tally centre including the DPC and other senior police officers. The agents would cross check the results read against the DR forms which they had. There was a power interruption at the tally centre which lasted about five minutes before the generator was powered back on. During the black out, the police officers present sealed the hall as tallying was halted until power was restored. Tallying continued till 5:00am when all the results were tallied and the final totals declared in front of all the agents and the candidates who had arrived at the time. There were no cancellation, alterations or change of results on the DR forms. The Petitioner attached incomplete DR forms deliberately to peddle lies and hide away from the fact that her agents actually signed the DR forms and certified the results as true. He also deponed that Mutai Vitalis was an electoral commission official and was at the tally centre when he got there at 10:00pm. The 2nd Respondent averred that Mutai Vitalis was not her agent but he was an electoral official who was present during throughout at the tally centre. 6. The Petitioner alleges that there were irregularities during the tallying process characterised by presentation of Dr forms out of time and extraneous materials introduced under the cover of darkness which were received by the returning officer despite protests from the Petitioner’s agents. Further that the Petitioner’s agent was chased away from the polling station. 7. These allegations are denied by the Respondents. For clarity, Mutai Vitalis referred to by the Petitioner’s witnesses is RW3, the Kaptererwa subcounty election supervisor. He denied these allegations. As an official of the 1st Respondent, his presence at the tally centre is explainable. The fact that the Petitioner’s witnesses claimed that he was an agent of the 2nd Respondent yet he was not weakens their credibility on this issue. They are simply not to be believed. As such, there is no evidence on the record to support these allegations except for the partisan witnesses who are not credible. This court is reluctant to rely on them especially where there is no corroboration of independent evidence. 8. Except for the mistakes in entering data in the declaration forms for Kapkoloswo, Kokorwo and Matimbei, there is no evidence on the record to prove that the elections were conducted in non-compliance with electoral laws and principles thereunder. Issue one is resolved in the negative.

**Issue two- whether the non-compliance affected the results in a substantial manner**

1. In **Dr. Kiiza Besigye v. Yoweri Museveni, Supreme Court Election Petition Appeal No. 1 of 2001,** Mulenga JSC at p. 355 explained thus: “To my understanding therefore the expression noncompliance affected the result of the election in a substantial manner ... can only mean that the votes a candidate obtained would have been different in a substantial manner, if it were not for the non-compliance substantially. That means that to succeed, the petitioner does not have to prove that the declared candidate would have lost. It is sufficient to prove that his winning majority would have been reduced. Such reduction however would have to be such as would put victory in doubt.” 2. The errors found in resolving issue one are to the effect making wrong subtractions in the tally sheet and not filling all the information in the declaration form for Matimbei. These errors were not in respect of how many votes each candidate polled. At Kapkoloswo, there is a difference of 2 votes between the total number of females and males who voted and the total number of ballots cast for candidates. At Kokorwo, the errors are in regards of how many ballots were issued to the station, and how many remained after the voting. At Matimbei, while the declaration form shows how many votes each candidate polled, there is missing information on the total number of valid votes cast for each candidate ballot papers counted and spoilt papers. These are mistakes that cannot be said to have affected the results in a substantial way. 3. Be that as it may, at Kokorwo, the 2nd Respondent polled 192 and at Matimbei, she polled 377 vote, this equals to 569. When you add the 2 votes at Kapkoloswo the total is 571. When you subtract 571 from 16603 votes polled by the 2nd Respondent, she remains with 16032 votes against the Petitioner’s 15585 votes. This gives a winning margin of 447 votes. Such a margin does not put the victory of the 2nd Respondent in doubt. 4. Applying the above test therefore, there is no basis to find that the election was affected in a substantial way. Issue two is resolved in the negative.

**Issue three- whether the 2nd Respondent personally or through her agents, with her knowedge and consent or approval committed electoral offences and illegal acts during the elections**

1. PW6 testified that he found RW24, an agent for the 2nd Respondent at the junction of `Brirwok centre paying people and making them board motorcycles to go and vote at Kaptererwo for the 2nd Respondent. He followed them to the polling station but he was chased away. 2. The 2nd Respondent denied engaging in bribery either directly or indirectly. RW23 denied bribing any voter or ferrying them to vote for the 2nd Respondent. He insisted that he spent the whole day coordinating activities for the 2nd Respondent and delivering snacks to her agents. He only met PW6 at Kamakunga T-junction when they were both on separate motorcycles. They hooted at each other and they kept moving to their respective directions. 3. The Petitioner submitted that the 2nd Respondent committed these offences by providing or causing the provision of money and other gifts to voters with intent to directly or indirectly cause them to refrain from voting for the Petitioner. Further that she personally engaged in voting at two stations both at mokoywet and Kapnadi Upper. The Respondents submitted that Petitioner failed to bring any credible and cogent evidence to prove the allegations of bribery. The petitioner never lead any evidence from her two agents at Mokoywet to dispose allegations made and after the 2nd Respondent filed her answer, she never rebutted.

The 2nd Respondent denied allegations of voting both at Mokoywet and Kapnandi upper polling stations. She averred that she only voted at Mokoywet where she is registered to vote. it is not true that her father is a voter at Kapnandi Upper polling station. He is a registered voter at Makwoyet where he voted very early in the morning and went back because he was sickly. . RW20 testified that the 2nd Respondent and her father voted at Makoywet after which they went home.

1. RW6 and RW9 denied allegations that the 2nd Respondent voted at Kapnandi upper polling station and maintained that she only voted at Makoywet where she is registered. RW9 testified that 2nd Respondent only voted at Makoywet polling station and maintained that the machines were used. He also maintained that the voters were verified both by the national voters register and the BVVK machines. There was no impersonation of dead voters and there was no multiple voting. No person voted using another person’s voter’s slip. RW5 and RW7 denied allegations of chasing, intimidating or harassing the Petitioner’s agents. There were no alterations on the declaration forms. 2. RW 21 testified that he voted at Makoywet and never stepped at Kapnandi Upper polling station. He also denied ever voting for his deceased wife who was also registered at Makoywet as Monica Chepkosis and not Monica Chepkobar as alleged. RW22 testified that he was with Boyo Solomon at Kapnandi Upper cell and therefore his allegations about Makoywet must be lies. He never saw RW21 or the 2nd Respondent at Kapnandi Upper voting. 3. Section 68 (1) of the PEA creates the offence of bribery. It provides that “any person who either before, or during an election with intent either directly or indirectly to influence another person to vote or to refrain from voting for any candidate, gives or provides or causes to be given or provided any money, gift or other consideration to that other person, commits the offense of bribery.” 4. In **Apolot Stella Isodo v. Amongin Jacquiline election petition appeal No. 0060 of 2016** it was held that “it is now well settled that there are three ingredients of bribery which are; (1) a gift was given to a voter; (2) the gift was given by a candidate or his agent; and that (3) it was given with the intention of inducing the person to vote.” 5. **Mbayo Jacob Robert v. Electoral Commission & Talisunya, Election Petition No. 07 of 2006**, Court called for caution and advised that some other evidence from an independent source is required to confirm the allegations of bribery instead of reliance on supporters of the Candidates trading accusations and counter – accusations. 6. The Petitioner has not led any evidence from those she claims were bribed to show court who bribed them and what they were bribed with and how that bribery affected who they voted for to substantiate her claims. She has not met the standard of proof for bribery claims. In the same way, the Petitioner did not led any independent evidence to prove that indeed the 2nd Respondent voted twice. 7. Based on all the above, the petition is dismissed with costs for the Respondents.

It is so ordered.

**CORNELIA KAKOOZA SABIITI**

**JUDGE**

**26/10/2021**