It was further contended by the appellants that the rules of natural justice which require that a person be specifically informed of the allegations against him/her and have an ample opportunity to give an explanation were contravened. The 2nd appellant was given a very short time (20 days) to respond to so many affidavits yet most of the witnesses were partisan and so it was easy to get them. According to the appellants, the rules of natural justice not only do they require that a person be informed of specific allegations before him/her but he must also be given ample time to explain his case. In support of their argument, the appellants relied on the decision of DE SOUZA vs TANGA TOWN COUNCIL [1961] EA 377 where the former Court of Appeal for East Africa held:“If the principles of natural justice are violated in respect of any decision, it is indeed immaterial whether the same decision would have been arrived at in the absence of the departure from the essential principles of justice that decision must be declared to be no decision”. It was further contended for the appellants that even if the particulars of the alleged bribery were properly pleaded, they were not proved at all. It is settled law that the burden of proof lies on the petitioner to prove his/her case to the satisfaction of the Court. In the case of Amama Mbabazi & Anor vs Musinguzi Garuga, Election Petition Appeal No.12 of 2002, it was held, inter alia, that: “There can be no doubt that the allegation of bribery by a candidate in an election process is a serious matter. It requires cogent evidence to prove it. In the instant case, there was assertion and denial. There was no independent evidence to corroborate the allegations”. In the current appeal, the appellants submit that even if the particulars of the alleged bribery were properly pleaded, they were not proved at all by the respondent.