5 polling stations or otherwise. If the number of votes the respondent got out of these 15 polling stations significantly reduced the winning majority of 7,679 votes of the 1st appellant, then the respondent would have rightly succeeded in her petition to set aside the election and to have a byeelection held. The respondent failed to provide this evidence, and in its absence, it was most unfair to the 1st appellant and the District electorate at large to have her winning majority done away with 10 by the trial judge, the way it was done. The learned trial judge was not justified to just compare and aggregate the number of registered voters from the 17 polling stations of 8,144 together with the winning majority of the 1st appellant and then conclude by washing away the 1st appellant’s winning majority. This approach overlooked the fact that each candidate at this election suffered equally from the decision of the Electoral Commission to exclude the votes from the 17 polling 15 stations from the final tally of the results. The respondent therefore had to discharge the burden that she would have got the majority votes if the votes from the 15 polling stations had been taken into account. She had the requisite evidence to prove or disprove this. She did not adduce it and thus she failed to discharge this burden. The learned trial judge ought to have approached this issue on the basis of the approach set by this court in Election Petition Appeal No.17 of 2002: Edward 20 Byaruhanga Katumba Vs Electoral Commission & Siraje Nkugwa Kizito. The learned trial judge erred by not so approaching the issue. I would allow the appeal and I concur with the Orders as to costs proposed by my Lord A.S. Nshimye. 25 Dated at Kampala this …03rd …day of …July….2012. Remmy. K. Kasule 30 JUSTICE OF APPEAL 21