were afforded a fair trial particularly the 2nd appellant. Turning to the respondent’s pleadings, it is clear to me they failed to comply with the law in that behalf. All the illegal practices or other offences allegedly committed by the 2nd respondent personally or by his agents with his knowledge and consent or approval and indeed all those alleged against the 1st appellant are merely mentioned in various paragraphs of the petition in very general terms. They were similarly treated in the affidavit of the respondent in support which accompanied the petition. The learned trial judge acknowledge this shortcoming in her judgemnet when she stated “In the petitioner’s affidavits, general allegation of illegal acts and illegal malpractices were made. No specific argument on this allegation and no polling station or person was named (sic) (See pg 40 of the judgment) “There is no specific averment in the petitioner’s supporting affidavit. She however makes a general statement on offences in paragraph 6” (See page 101 of the judgment), The learned trial judge, then goes on to say “Specifics are given by her witnesses who named various villages where alleged acts of bribery were committed including…” (See Pg 101 of the judgment). Counsel were at variance on the status of these other affidavits by the petitioners’ witnesses. Counsel for the 2nd appellant contends that they were not part of the petition envisaged under Rule 4 of S.I 141-2 of 2005. According to him, they did not accompany the petition within the meaning of rule 4.8 which, in his view, and I agree, is mandatory. Counsel for the respondent strongly contended that these affidavits, though filed five months after the respondent’s petition had been presented to court, were part and parcel of the petition. They were all in support of the petition. I have given very careful consideration to this matter and the law regarding the same. I am persuaded that both the petition and the affidavit of the petitioner accompanying