vii. The causal connection between the Applicant and the alleged recently stolen goods, thus the invocation of the doctrine of recent possession26 to link him to the crime. In his memorandum of appeal to the High Court at Moshi, vide Criminal Appeal Number 82 of 1998, the Applicant contends that there is no traceability to him, of the items alleged to have been stolen from Mr. William Mika, as these could have been obtained from any motor spares shop. He states that he was at the shop of Prosecution Witness 2, Mr. Fredrick Martin Minja, to collect money that one Mr. Kipisi owed him and not that he was there to sell the alleged stolen items. He alleges that Mr. Kipisi was selling some items to Mr. Minja then Mr. Kipisi would pay him back from the money he received from Mr. Minja. 126. The Respondent contends that the Applicant is put to strict proof regarding the above allegations. The Respondent also contends that the Applicant was lawfully charged with the offence of armed robbery and that the trial courts had jurisdiction to try the matter. The Respondent further states that these are matters that are not within the purview of this Court because the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, being the final court of appeal has already adjudicated upon them. 26 This doctrine relates to a common law principle applied where an accused person is in possession of property which has been recently stolen and the accused either gives no explanation as to how he came to have it, or gives an explanation which could not reasonably be true thus the conclusion that he stole it or that he received it knowing it to be stolen.