18.4. Having made the allegation, the applicant was enjoined to prove it in his founding papers. He has failed to do so. 19. Ad Para 4.5.26 This is denied. 19.1. Firstly, the applicants founding papers have not proven an irregularity as alleged. The applicant makes no more than a bare allegation. 19.2. Secondly, the conclusion made by the applicant, from this bare allegation, is that the Electoral Commission rigged the presidential election with no evidence furnished and no explanation given as to how the alleged rigging is said to have taken place. 19.3. An applicant in motion proceedings ought to make out his full case in the founding papers and if, as he has done herein, he makes bald and unsubstantiated allegations, his application cannot possibly succeed. Surely if the applicant had polling agents at the unidentified polling stations he alleges did not have returns affixed, those agents would have been given V11 forms before the return for the polling station is affixed in terms of the law. The applicant does not in this context present his V11 forms and contend that the V11 forms that the Electoral Commission has are different from what he has. If he did not have polling agents at the unidentified polling stations how does he conclude that the alleged failure to affix a return in terms of the law occurred or resulted in the alleged rigging at those unidentified polling stations?