5 numbers were exceeding the actual voters and those for Kanyagazi, results for only two candidates were forwarded. Counsel submitted that this evidence was never adduced in court. Therefore the claims of the returning officer could not be verified. The explanations given by the retuning officer were that he had not yet got the results from the 15 10 polling stations. These were contradictory. Further, the returning officer stated that he later got the DR Forms but never produced them in court. Counsel relied on Section 53 of the P.E.A and submitted that the returning officer failed to exploit an opportunity under the above section and wondered then where the returning officer got 15 the DR Forms for the 15 polling stations after declaring the results. The returning officer was required to annex the DR Forms but did not do so. Counsel wondered where he kept them and why did he refuse to produce them. Section 52 of the P.E.A provides for the safe custody of voting materials until all election disputes are concluded. Counsel suggested that DR Forms were withheld for fear of discovery of discrepancies and manipulations. 20 He gave examples of discrepancies in the respondents’ affidavit, she complained of the results being reduced to 0 belonging to one Constance Obonyo, the appellant got 76 but was given 113 and the results of Ayo Jacinta Ochwola who got 01 vote was given 76 of the appellant at Mission of Hope polling station. On the tally sheet this was not a mere mistake but complete inter changing of 25 results, falsification and manipulation. At Nyasirenge polling station, the respondent got 27 votes and on the tally sheet, she was given 21. At Mulisha Polling Station, Jacinta got 150 votes and on the tally sheet she was given 5votes, hence the findings of the trial judge were justified, counsel concluded. 30 Counsel complained that the 2nd appellant failed to avail DR Forms to the respondent and her agents for verification. There are 185 affidavits stating that there were no sufficient DR Forms. The respondent deponed that she and her agents were deprived of DR Forms, which was a genuine complaint. Counsel relied on Section 50 (1) (d) of the P.E.A which enjoins the 2nd respondent to 35 avail a copy of the DR Forms to the agent of the candidate or any other voter who may be interested in the same. Failure to do so was a contravention of the law. Therefore, the forms of the constituency cannot be said to have been verified for the tally sheet. There was a prerequisite and without them, one cannot create a tally sheet, counsel concluded. In further support of his 5