intends to rely should not be misconstrued to mean only one affidavit by the petitioner. In the petition, the respondent pleaded and duly substantiated several election offences and illegal practices, which various witnesses observed. For example, in paragraph 9 of her petition, the respondent stated that the petition was supported by her affidavit together with other affidavits of various deponents. Mr. Lukwago further pointed out that the respondent made a clear averment about election offences including bribery in paragraph 6 of her affidavit as follows: “THAT the polling agents and the election supervisors reported to me that numerous electoral malpractices, illegal practices and offences were committed by the 1st Respondent, his agents and supporters, the officers of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) together with the polling officials and agents of the 2nd Respondent in respect of which several persons have made affidavits as evidence in support of my Petition”. According to counsel, the said pleading was sufficient considering the requirements of O.19r3 of the Civil Procedure Rules which provide that save for interlocutory applications; matters deponed to in an affidavit must be confined to facts which the deponent is able of his or her own knowledge to prove. In the instant case, the respondent did not personally witness any act of bribery. In counsel’s view, it was inconceivable to expect the respondent to know and include in her affidavit how much bribe was given, where and what time in each and every incident. According to counsel, the authority of Castestelino vs. Rodrigues [1972] E.A 223 states that any reference to a document in pleadings incorporates the contents of that document in the pleadings. Mr. Lukwago further submitted that in the case of Hon. Mukasa John Harris vs. Dr. Bayiga Michael Philip Lulume, Election Petition Appeal No. 14 of 2006, the Court of Appeal did not find anything wrong with the petition wherein the respondent had averred that the appellant bribed voters contrary to section 68(1) of the PEA. The court further observed that the particulars of bribery were given by different witnesses in their affidavits. According to counsel, this is the same finding of the trial Judge in