5
by Onyango Obbo with 2000/= this is evident in the affidavit of Agnes Ochwo especially paragraph
2-5.
The allegation of bribery to Agnes was corroborated by Ogutu Simon who by affidavit, in particular
paragraph 6 depones to having witnessed Onyango Obbo handing the money to Agnes Ochwo.
10
Counsel stated that although Onyango Obbo denied ever bribing her and put up a defence of alibi,
there was however sufficient evidence by 3 witnesses which destroyed that alibi thereby placing
him at the scene of the crime.
The 1st appellant also in her two affidavits does not deny specifically that Onyango Obbo was her
15
agent and that he bribed Agnes Ochwo with her knowledge or approval. She generally denies that
she said that neither she nor her agents bribed voters. The trial judge found that evidence was
available to prove that Agnes Ochwo was bribed by Onyango Obbo which was not rebutted. Agnes
Ochwo testified that she was given money when she was going to vote and that she indeed voted for
the 1st appellant.
20
Counsel Tebyasa argued further that Agnes did not have to move with a voter’s card to prove that
she was a registered voter because Section 34 (3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA), allows
a person without a voter’s card also to vote, so long as that person’s name appeared on the register.
The fact that she voted at Akadot Primary School presupposes that she was a registered voter and
25
there, the burden shifted to the appellant to prove that she was not a registered voter. To support his
argument, he relied on the cases of Mukasa Anthony Harris V. Dr. Bayiga Michael Phillip
Lulume, S.C.C.A No. 18 of 2007.
In his view the trial judge correctly applied the law of agency and relied on the decisions of Besigye
30
Kiiza V. Museveni Yoweri Kaguta (supra) and Kaija William V. Byamukama K. James,
Election Petition Appeal No. 12 of 2006. Onyango Obbo admitted that he was the agent of the 1st
appellant and therefore there was no necessity to prove that instructions were given expressly or by
implication.
35
In respect of the second ground, learned counsel submitted that the trial judge was justified in
concluding that the 2nd respondent failed to discharge its statutory obligation when it disallowed DR
Forms for 15 polling stations. The returning officer stated that he received and cancelled results
from 2 polling stations because in respect of the results from Bendo Nursery polling station, the
4