106. This Court further notes that: In assessing these conditions (i.e., indigence and interest of justice), the Court considers several factors, including i. the seriousness of the crime; ii. the severity of the potential sentence; iii. the complexity of the case; iv. the social and personal situation of the defendant and, in cases of appeal, the substance of the appeal (whether it contains a contention that requires legal knowledge or skill); and the nature of the “entirety considerable of the proceedings”, disagreements for example, whether there on points of law or fact in the judgments are of lower courts. 107. In the instant Application, the Court notes from the record that in the first case before the District Magistrate Court, the Applicant was represented by counsel whom he engaged. However, this was not the case with respect to proceedings before the High Court and the Court of Appeal. With regard to the second case, there Applicant was is nothing represented on record by counsel to establish during whether his trial before or not the the District Magistrate Court and at his appeal before the High Court. In view of this, the Court will limit its assessment only to the first case and determine whether the Applicant's right to free legal assistance has been violated. 108. The records show that the Applicant was charged with a serious offence carrying a heavy custodial sentence of a minimum of thirty (30) years. Besides, the case involved eight (8) prosecution witnesses, two (2) defence witnesses and five (5) prosecution exhibits, which shows the complexity of the matter. In the circumstances, it is evident that the interest of justice required the provision of free legal assistance so as to ensure that the Applicant's trial and appeals proceeded fairly. 109. In this connection, the Court takes note of the Respondent State's contention that the Applicant had counsel at the District Magistrate Court, that Kennedy Owino and Another v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) § 105. 31