on the allegation. Regarding Declaration Forms and falsification of Results, the trial judge summed as follows: I have dealt with these Declaration of Results Forms in details earlier. I need not repeat the ruling on them. For emphasis, I wish to state that I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence adduced that the 2nd Respondent’s officers did not comply with the provisions of sections 47 and 50 of the PEA in the way they handled the vote counting and the Declaration of Results Forms in most of the stations enumerated above. This ground succeeds”. I have no good reason to fault her on the above finding. She was also justified to find that the 2nd Respondent failed to provide sufficient light at the stations mentioned. At the end of the day, whether there was non-compliance with the provisions and principles set out in the PEA, the learned trial judge observed thus: “Having found as I have on most of the grounds raised, I agree with counsel Lukwago that the election held at Mukono North Constituency fell short of the election envisaged under our election laws. It is well known that there is no perfect election the world over. This one fell far below the required standard. There was a Declaration of Results Form which was white washed and a total of 30 votes added to the 1st Respondent. A number of Declaration of Results Forms were not filled at the polling stations because they were not provided with the rest of the election materials. They were later on filled at the Sub-County District headquarters. Results were filled on a piece of paper from an exercise book and later on transferred to a Declaration of Results Form leading to another difference of 100 votes in favour of the 1st Respondent. The election at Mukono North Constituency was extremely poor. This greatly affected the result in a substantial manner and the 1st Respondent benefited from it”. The above findings cover ground 2(h) and grounds 3 and 6 of the appeal by the appellants. In the premises, ground 2 of this appeal must also fail.