Declaration of Results Forms should be struck off as not supported by any evidence. According to counsel, no where is it shown that the votes polled by each of the three candidates were changed. The respondent in Paragraph 9(i) of her affidavit in support of the petition stated that at some polling stations, the presiding officers filled the Declaration of Results Forms before the votes were counted and at some polling stations the time is not indicated. Therein she named the affected polling stations. The learned trial judge found that the allegations were proved. Counsel, however, contend that the allegations were not proved to the satisfaction of the court nor did it affect the result in a substantial manner. As regards the complaint that some agents did not sign the Declaration of Results Forms, counsel submitted that even some agents of the 2nd appellant did not sign. On the issue that some Declaration of Results Forms had no serial numbers, counsel submitted that it is not fatal because the respondent does not contest the result. According to counsel, a number of Presiding Officers had explained the circumstances under which the Declaration of Results Forms were submitted and admitted and that does not affect the result since the votes polled by each candidate were not interfered with. In paragraphs 13-14 of her affidavit, the respondent claims that the results at Kyungu polling station showed that the 2nd appellant had polled 184 instead of 154 votes while her votes remained intact. Counsel contend that if she wanted to prove this allegation, she would have applied to have that particular box opened and get certified copies of Declaration of Result Forms from the Electoral Commission. The learned trial Judge considered this allegation and made a finding that it was proved whereas not. In conclusion, counsel for the appellants submitted that the errors in the Declaration of Results Forms did not affect the results polled by each candidate nor did they affect the result in a substantial manner.