the instant case. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants were given adequate time to respond and indeed they filed all the affidavits they wanted. Thereafter, the appellants cross-examined the respondent’s witnesses. In counsel’s view, it comes as a surprise and indeed a frantic afterthought on the part of the 2nd appellant to allege that he was denied fair hearing as far as the issue of bribery is concerned. Mr. Lukwago pointed out that the 2nd appellant swore an affidavit in rebuttal of the respondent’s averment of bribery. Besides, the 2nd appellant’s reply to the petition was properly evaluated by the trial judge as opposed to the respondent’s evidence before making a finding. It is thus missing the point to allege that the trial judge was in error and denied the 2nd appellant fair hearing on the allegations of bribery. Even if there was any slight deviation from the rules during the trial, which is absolutely not the case, Mr. Lukwago submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that there was a miscarriage of justice. In support of his argument, counsel cited the case of Idd Kisiki Lubyayi vs Ssewankambo Musa Kamulegeya, Election Petition Appeal No.8 of 2006 and Idd Kisiki Lubyayi vs Kagimu Maurice Peter, Election Petition Appeal No.06 of 2002. Bribery at Nakumbo village Counsel for the appellants contend that it was wrong for the trial judge to make a finding that the election offence of bribery was proved by the respondent for the following reasons: i) The learned trial Judge chose to believe evidence of Muwonge George who was a single witness. Mr. Lukwago submitted that it is trite law that there is no specific number of witnesses required to rove a given fact. In support that bribery in an election petition can be proved on the strength of evidence of a single witness, Mr. Lukwago cited the case of Mukasa Anthony Harris vs Dr. Bayiga Michael Philip Lulume, Election Petition Appeal No.14 of 2006 (supra) and Hon. Kirunda Kiveijinja