appellant polled 260 votes. iii) That the said pieces of paper on which the results were summarized were duly signed by the agents present. iv) That the said pieces of paper were not supplied to the presiding officer by the Electoral Commission. v) That the presiding officer gave three copies to agents of candidates. vi) That Mutesasira admitted that the particular piece of paper which was exhibited in court was in his hand writing and had his signature. vii) That the purported Declaration of Results Form was filled at the Sub-County headquarters contrary to the electoral laws, and viii) That Mutesasira is a liar. Mr. Lukwago submitted that all the above findings have not been challenged by counsel for the appellants. Counsel submitted further that the contention that the affidavit of Nsumba Kefa should have been rejected is neither here or there because the Judge looked at the totality of the evidence on record. Kiwanga Polling Station Counsel for the appellants simply state “My Lords, Annexture L2 pg 88 of the record, the presiding officer Musoke Issa states that he did not get the forms in time”. According to Mr. Lukwago, they are not saying anything about the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses, let alone the finding of the trial judge at p.72-73 of the judgment. That not withstanding, Mr. Lukwago submitted that the evidence of Musoke Issa was riddled with grave contradictions and therefore incredible. Ntinda II Polling Station Counsel for the appellants admit that the Declaration of Results Form for polling station was whitewashed but the results remained the same to wit, the respondent polled 150 votes, 2nd appellant 103 votes. They therefore contend that the respondent does not show what the result was other than that shown on the