Applicant. According to the Applicant, the witness, who testified that she had identified the Applicant, asserted that before the Applicant committed the crime, the Applicant uttered words which enabled the identification of the Applicant and which could not be forgotten. However, during the witness statement at the police station, the witness neglected to mention the words which allegedly enabled the identification of the Applicant and which could not be forgotten. 102. The Applicant also argues that the witness framed her evidence in order to implicate the Applicant in this offence for being chased from the house of the Applicant’s mother. 103. The Applicant, therefore, submits that the domestic courts had incurably failed to observe some serious misdirection on points of law in the judgment, as the alleged identification by the witness was not watertight. * 104. The Respondent State disputes the allegation and states that the Court of Appeal finalised this matter in its judgment as the Applicant had raised it as his fourth ground of appeal. 105. The Respondent State submits that the Court of Appeal appraised the issue of identification from pages 16-19 of its judgment where it concluded as follows: On the basis of the above evidence from PW1 which was corroborated by PW2 and PW7, also when the opinions of the assessors are taken on board, we agree with Mr. Ngole that the condition at the scene of the crime was conducive for positive identification. 106. With regard to the allegation that PW1 was not a reliable or credible witness, the Respondent State notes that the Court of Appeal considered this at pages 21-23 of its judgment and concluded as follows: 26