5 Having re-appraised the evidence that was adduced on this issue, and after making allowance that I had no opportunity to see the demeanour of the witnesses at trial, I all the same come to the conclusion that given the weak evidence that was adduced, the bribery allegation was not proved against the 1st appellant. 10 On the issue of disenfranchisement of voters and whether the same affected the results of the election in a substantial manner, I find that it was proved as a fact that voters from 17 polling stations with a total number of 8,844 registered voters were disenfranchised. Proof of the above fact however was, per se, not enough for the results of the election to be set 15 aside. Section 61 (1) (a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act required the respondent to prove on a balance of probabilities to the satisfaction of the court that the disenfranchisement affected the result in a substantial manner. It is significant to appreciate the fact that when the total number of registered voters of 8844 from 20 the 17 polling stations had been excluded from the total number of the votes cast, the 1st appellant remained with 41,165 votes, while the respondent had 33,486 votes. This means that exclusive of the results of the 17 polling stations the 1st appellant had a winning majority of 7,679 votes from the electorate of Tororo District. 25 This winning majority would most likely grow higher if the results from the 17 polling stations were to be taken into account. It was also a fact that the exclusion of the results from the 17 polling stations affected all the candidates in the election equally as none of them enjoyed any votes from any of the said stations. 30 This fact therefore made it incumbent upon the respondent to prove to the satisfaction of the court that given the votes she got from the 15 polling stations,(having excluded the two where the number of registered voters was less than those who voted) she would have the 1st appellant’s winning majority reduced to such an extent that the 1st appellant would cease to be the winner or that the ultimate result would be so uncertain that it would not be possible to tell as to who exactly is the 35 winner of the election. It was incumbent upon the respondent to avail to the court the number of votes that she got at each of the 15 polling stations through the declaration of results forms of her polling agents at each of the 20