My brother Ferdinand. I have read the judgment, including the Court of Appeal decision in Chebrot v Soyekwo relied upon by the learned Judge. I do not dispute the principle that proof of electoral irregularities, without proof of substantial effect on the result, is insufficient to nullify an election under section 80(1)(a) of the Parliamentary Elections Act. However, the critical question is whether Chebrot is distinguishable on its facts. In Cheroot, the irregularity concerned 141 missing unused ballot papers against an established winning margin of 162 votes. The Court could therefore assess the possible effect of that specific irregularity against an otherwise accepted result. In Nalubowa, the High Court expressly found that the recount itself was conducted unlawfully because the integrity of several ballot boxes and essential electoral materials had been compromised. Indeed, the Judge adopted Byanyima v Ngoma Ngime, which treats a recount conducted on compromised materials as fundamentally defective. The question, therefore, is, in my view, whether the learned Judge could properly treat the figures produced by that unlawful recount as the reliable baseline for applying the substantiality test. The learned Judge compared 1,353 excluded votes with a winning margin of 2,326 votes. But that calculation assumes the reliability of the remaining recount figures, notwithstanding the challenge to the integrity of the recount process itself. That is the distinction which requires examination. The substantiality test is not in dispute. What is debatable is whether it was correctly applied to the evidence in this particular case. The legal question is not simply whether 1,353 is less than 2,326. It is whether the 2,326-vote margin was itself reliably established.