20,000/= to Etyang William alias Nandeeba to buy local brew for the residents. Etyang denied receiving the money. The appellants submitted that the evidence of one Musoke Nathan was rejected as being partisan but that of Kayondo was accepted wholesale although partisan double standards. In their view, the appellants submitted that this incident was not proved. All in all, it is submission of the appellants that on the issue of bribery not a single allegation was proved to the required standard let alone not proved at all. Mr. Erias Lukwago, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the citation of Rule 4(8) of the Parliamentary Elections (Election Petitions) Rule 51 141-2 to buttress the respondent’s first ground of appeal is uncalled for. Counsel hastened to point out that all the affidavits accompanying the Petition in this case are headed “Affidavit in support of the Petition”. No single affidavit was “brought in belatedly”. According to counsel, all the respondent’s affidavit accompanying the petition were filed in time and that the appellants never complained about any “belated affidavit” during the trial. Learned counsel further submitted that the averment of the respondent/petitioner in paragraph 7(a) of her petition that the 2nd appellant bribed voters contrary to section 68(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act 2005 complied substantially with the requirement of the rules. Rule 4(2) of SI-141-2 provides: “Every petition shall state the holding and result of the election together with a statement of the grounds relied upon to sustain the prayer of the petition”. In that regard, counsel submitted that paragraph 7(a) of the petition stated the grounds relied upon, to sustain the petition. Counsel Lukwago pointed out that Rule 4(8) 51-141-2 which requires the petition to be accompanied by an affidavit setting out the facts on which the petition is based together with a list of any documents on which the petitioner