specified under the Minimum Sentences Act and his being unrepresented. Having considered all the above circumstances, the Court finds that it was incumbent upon the trial magistrate and Appellate Judges to ensure that, the Applicant was provided with legal aid. Therefore the Respondent failed to comply with its obligations under the Charter and the ICCPR to provide the Applicant with legal representation in respect of the trial and subsequent appeals. IV. The alleged Manifest Errors at Trial with Regard to Criminal Case Number 321 of 1996 and their subsequent consideration by the High Court and Court of Appeal 125. The Applicant contends that there were grave inconsistencies between the Charge Sheet and the evidence of the Prosecution Witnesses which adversely affected his right to a fair hearing at the trial and Appellate Courts. These inconsistencies related to: i. Attribution of ownership of stolen items: The Charge Sheet stated that the stolen goods belonged to Mr. Elimani Maleko while in evidence, Prosecution Witness 1, Mr. William Mika, stated that the stolen goods belonged to him. ii. Description of items stolen: The Charge Sheet describes the stolen items as "clutch covers" while Prosecution Witness 1, Mr Mika describes them as "clutch plates" and Prosecution Witness 2, Mr. Fredrick Martin Minja, describes them as "clutch facings." 4Y