PW9 who testified to the same effect…the record shows that throughout from committal proceedings, preliminary hearing right up to the trial, the appellants were made to understand that they were being charged with trafficking 317 268.69 grammes of bhang and not 290 kilogrammes. 64. It is clear from the above that the Applicants’ contention before this Court was already dealt with by the Court of Appeal. As earlier pointed out, the Applicants’ counsel abandoned the ground of appeal upon being shown proof, by the Court of Appeal, that the ground had no merit. In line with its established jurisprudence, the Court is not mandated to supplant domestic courts especially in relation to issues revolving around the assessment of evidence.12 In the present Application, the Applicants have merely restated the arguments they made before the Court of Appeal without offering the Court any basis for it to determine whether the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment or not. 65. In the circumstances, the Court holds that the Applicants have not established any violation of their right to fair trial by reason of the manner in which the Court of Appeal dealt with the question of the weight of the Cannabis Sativa. The Court thus dismisses the Applicants’ allegation on this point. B. Alleged violation relating to the possession of the Cannabis Sativa 66. The Applicants contend that the “Court of Appeal erred in law by failing to consider if truly the appellants were nabbed with the alleged drug …” According to the Applicants, no evidence was tendered proving that they had loaded the impounded drugs unto the truck. This, they submit, is “a blatant error on the face of justice” necessitating their acquittal. * 12 Oscar Josiah v. United Republic of Tanzania (merits) (28 March 2019) 3 AfCLR 83, § 52. 18