The rule is mandatory. There is a general statement in the petition (7(a)) does not identify any single voter who was allegedly bribed, it does not specify any place where the alleged bribery could have taken place, it does not specify any form of bribery. The petition therefore tells us nothing. This is what the 1st Respondent was served with. The affidavit is support says nothing at all about bribery,. All the facts must first be alleged in the petitioner’s affidavit. They must not be hidden away. They must not be kept as a secret record. This petition is in breach of the mandatory requirements of rule 4(8) and does not make out any case worth investigating by this court, of bribery. In these matters the CPR still apply. When you allege fraudulent matters you must plead them and you must give particulars in your pleadings. The purpose is to give a fair trial. In this case the 1st respondent has not been given a fair trial because he only got to know the delegations after the affidavits had been filed. Then he had to scramble a round to look for affidavits in rebuttal. Our trial system is based on fair trial. All facts must be set out in the pleadings from the onset. This ground should fail.” (sic) The above, in my view, is a clear objection by the 2nd appellant which culminates into a complaint that he was not accorded a fair trial. On counsel for the respondent’s submission that the filing of the additional affidavits was agreed to by the 2nd appellant, we find no consent order on the record to that effect. The learned trial judge only says that after discussing with counsel, she directed that additional affidavits be filed. Counsel for the respondent then, on the strength of this, statement argues that the 2nd appellants cannot now turn around and say that those additional affidavits cannot be part of the petition. In effect he raises the doctrine of estoppel. As stated earlier, the law governing the form of petitions and the accompanying