was not scheduled to campaign there on that day. He availed a letter (ANNEX IN2) that confirms that the electrification of Soweto area was a government programme that he participated in as area MP, not an act of inducement by him to voters……….” The learned trial judge did not subject the evidence to evaluation in order to find which evidence required corroboration and which one did not. There was evidence which I have already evaluated regarding welding and compressor machines. This evidence alleged that it was the appellant who personally 10 handed over these machines. It was thus important to look at the entire evidence before concluding as she did that all charges of illegal practices were not proved conclusively. This issue would succeed. On the burden and standard of proof Mr Kyazze submitted that the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities according to section 61(3) of the PEA and the decision of the Supreme Court- Mukasa Anthony Harris v Dr Micheal Lulume Bayiga- EPA No.18/07. He criticized the trial judge for adopting a higher standard of proof and the authorities she relied upon were inapplicable to the election petition. The authorities she relied upon were Dr Kiiza Besigye v 20 Museveni Yoweri Kaguta (supra) and Karokora Katono Zedekia v Electoral Commission &another. Learned counsel cited the case of Jugnauth v Raj Direvium Nagaya Ringadoo [2008] UKPC 50 which discussed the standard of proof in election petitions. 27