5 submission, learned counsel Tebyasa cited the case of Dr. Oboth Markson Jacob V. Dr. Otiam Otalla, Election Petition Appeal No. 38 of 2011, which is to the effect that a party to the election may produce genuine forms for consideration of court. Reference was also made to the supporting affidavits of Owino Festo, affidavit of the respondent and Nkare Paul the Regional Police Commander. 10 Counsel contended that it was inconceivable that the tally sheet was inconsistent with the DR Forms and that the results did not represent the will of the people of her constituency. The respondent was cheated of votes and the total was 352 not 307 as stated by the trial judge on page 225. The mistake could be traced, the trial judge gave 47 to the respondent, yet on the tally sheet 15 she had been given 0. Mr. Tebyasa cited the case of (Col.) Dr. Besigye Kizza V. Museveni, (supra) in particular the judgment of J. Mulenga JSC, who stated that the victory of the appellant must be put in doubt. In counsel’s view the 2nd respondent was enjoined to conduct free and fair elections and that figures 20 are very important. Wrong entries made in the tally sheet, resulted in victory to a wrong candidate. In their written submissions on pg. 17-18, they tried to distinguish the case of Edward Byaruhanga Katumba V. Electoral Commission & Siraje Nkugwa Kizito (supra) which related to 1 polling station and 1 parish. In that case the box was snatched by unknown people and taken before counting. While in the instant case, there were 17 polling stations, the votes were counted 25 and declared but disappeared in the hands of the 2nd appellant, hence it is the party to blame as the trial court found. Finally, counsel prayed that the appeal be dismissed with costs here and in the court below with a certificate of 2 counsel and that the appellant be found guilty of bribery. 30 Submissions in rejoinder. Counsel Babigumira with leave of court filed in written submissions In respect of disenfranchisement, he faulted the learned trial judge because the yardstick he used to 35 determine the effect of failure to include results from all the polling station was wrong. He submitted further that the results from the two polling stations were rightly cancelled and could not have been included in the calculations. However, for the fifteen polling stations, even after the learned trial judge had included them in the calculations, the appellant remained in the lead. 6