47.10. The applicant does not put before the court, if such exist, V11 forms that show higher numbers of counted ballots to those issued at the polling station. 47.11. The applicant does not place any affidavits before the court from his election agents stating whether at certain polling stations the count yielded a higher number of cast ballots than those issued. 47.12. The applicant does not allege whether, from the V11 forms that he obtained through his agents, the trend of higher numbers of presidential ballots being cast to those in the House of Assembly election does not appear and only appears in the results announced by the Electoral Commission. 47.13. He does not do any of this because none of it is true. The results announced by the Electoral Commission, minus a few data capture errors that are immaterial to the result of the election, are a true representation of the votes cast in the 2018 local authority, House of Assembly and presidential elections. 47.14. Further, even when one considers the applicant’s averments under paragraph 6.4.9 wherein he alleges inflation and deflation of results, his final tally for the inflation, which he alleges arises from altered returns by the Electoral Commission, an allegation that is denied by the Electoral Commission, is 10 343, which figure is far below the 40 000 that he states under paragraph 6.4.8 as having been the “excess votes” in the presidential election. 48. Ad Para 6.4.9- 6.4.10 This is denied.