5 In the case of Amama Mbabazi & Anor. V. Musinguzi Garuga James, Election Petition (supra) Appeal No. 12 of 2002, Odoki CJ said, “… what is a substantial effect? This has not been defined in the 10 statute or judicial decisions but the cases of Hackney & Morgan V. Simpson attempted to define what the word substantial meant. I agree with the opinion of Grove J. the effect must be calculated to really influence the result in a significant manner. In order to assess the effect, court has to evaluate the whole process of election 15 to determine how it affected the results and then assess the degree of the effect. In the process of evaluation, it cannot be said that numbers are not important just as the conditions which produced those numbers. Numbers are useful in making adjustment for irregularities’’. 20 It is not sufficient that there have been irregularities, but the petitioner must go further and show how they affected the result of the election. Ground 3 (a) (i)-(viii) of the petition stated that as a result of non-compliance with the provisions 25 of the Act, the result of the election was affected in a substantial manner. This assertion was followed by items showing how the result was said to have been affected. In the case of Gunn V. Sharpe (1974) 1 Q.B 808, it was stated that, “…An election is not to be upset for informality or a triviality. The 30 objection to an election must be something substantial, something calculated really to affect the result of the election…” The court should look at the substance of the case and see whether the informality or errors are of such a nature as to be firmly calculated in a rational mind to produce a substantial effect upon the 35 election. The principle is that elections should not be lightly set aside simply because there have been informalities and errors. 16