127. In the Respondent's written submissions to the High Court at Moshi, in respect of Criminal Appeal Number 82 of 1998, the Respondent maintains that though the Applicant was not identified at the scene of the crime, he was found selling the stolen items, a few hours after the robbery. 128. The record of proceedings for the Applicant's appeal to the High Court at Moshi shows that, in its judgment, the High Court did not consider the issues of inconsistencies between the charge sheet and one of the prosecution witness's statements regarding the ownership of the property alleged to have been stolen, the description, number and value of the items stolen, proof that the offence occurred and the application of the doctrine of recent possession to link the Applicant to the crime. These issues were raised by the Applicant in his Appeal. Instead, the High Court upheld the Applicant's conviction on the basis that he did not use thH opportunity to defend himself in the trial court and that the trial magistrate must have therefore been convinced of the strength of the prosecution's case. The High Court upheld the Applicant's conviction and sentence, the latter being the statutory minimum under the Minimum Sentences Act. 129. The Court of Appeal of Tanzania, considered these points of appeal raised by the Applicant but it did not determine the issue of the ownership of the property alleged to have been stolen. 130. This Court does not accept the Respondent's contention that, the issue of manifest errors at trial are not within the purview of thin 52