elections, the election is vitiated, irrespective of whether the result was affected. 2. If the election was so conducted that it was substantially in accordance with the law as to elections, it is not vitiated by a breach of the rules or mistake at the polls-provided that the breach or mistake did not affect the result of the election. [205] On his part, Lord Stephenson went even a step further and held that even trivial breaches of the election law should alone vitiate an election. This is how he put it: “Any breach of the local election rules which affects the result of the election is by itself enough to compel the tribunal to declare the election void. It is not also necessary that the election should be conducted not substantially in accordance with the law as to local elections…If substantial breaches of the law are, as I think enough to invalidate an election though they do not affect its result, it follows that, contrary to the opinion of the Divisional Court, trivial breaches which affect the result must also be enough. I cannot hold that both substantial breach and an effect on the result must be found in conjunction before the Court can declare an election void.” [206] Nearer home, we adopt the concurring opinion of Justice Professor Lilian Tibatemwa Ekirikubinza issued in the case of Col. DR Kizza Besigye v. Attorney-General 100 where, notwithstanding the conjunctive nature of the Ugandan provision, she opined: 100 Col DR Kizza Besigye v. Attorney General Constitutional Petition Number 13 of 2009. Presidential  Petition  No.  1  of  2017                                                                                                                                                                                                            84  |  P a g e