This is denied. 66.1. The applicant challenges the number of votes entered for the 1st respondent on his annexure Q and the total ballots issued. He does not challenge the sum recorded under Total Valid Votes Received, recorded on his annexure Q, which figure is reached by adding the total votes received by each candidate. He further does not challenge the signatures by two MDC-Alliance agents that appear on his annexure Q. If one were to accept the applicant’s contention that the 1 st respondent’s total votes were in fact 9 and not 549, the figure recorded under total valid votes received, which the applicant does not challenge, would no longer be attainable. It is only attainable where the 1st respondent has a total vote count of 549. Applicant’s annexure Q, therefore, proves no forgery of V11 forms and as it is signed by two MDC-Alliance agents, neither of whom has deposed to an affidavit disowning the information on applicant’s annexure Q and producing the “correct” V11, that document is beyond challenge and is valid. 67. Ad Para 6.7.4 This is denied. Applicant’s annexure R is not explained. The applicant merely refers the court and the respondents to his annexure R and states that it shows “further discrepancies in vote tallies”. What those discrepancies are is not put across in his deposition. Further, the copy of annexure R attached to the papers received by the 23rd respondent has two highlighted columns that are illegible. The respondents thus do not know what it is they are asked to plead to with respect to annexure R. Its import in proving the applicant’s case is thus, also unknown.