On the welding machines, learned counsel submitted that the trial judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence. He pointed out that welding machines were delivered to different garages and all the 1st respondent did was to deny his involvement. He further submitted that Bukenya stated that machines were delivered to his garage but did not disclose who delivered them. On the acknowledgment sheets, counsel stated that the trial judge should not have believed that evidence because there was no evidence from H.E. the President or Moses Byaruhanga that they delivered the machines. He claimed that the evidence on welding machines was suspect and should have been rejected. 10 He submitted on the other evidence of bribery which he claimed was sufficient to prove the allegations on a balance of probabilities. Mr Kibedi who represented the first respondent argued grounds three and five together. He supported the evaluation of evidence by the trial judge. He pointed out that the allegations of bribery were rebutted by the 1 st respondent. He further submitted that the trial judge was alive to the need of corroborative evidence and she resorted to documentary evidence which indicated the source of the machines. On the need for corroborative evidence learned counsel cited two authorities namely Dr Kiiza Besigye v Museveni Yoweri Kaguta-Election 20 Petition No.1/2001(SC) and Mbayo Jacob v Electoral Commission &another – Election Petition Appeal No.7/06(CA). He invited court to disallow the ground. 17