67. The Respondent State did not specifically address this dimension of the Applicant’s submissions. *** 68. The Applicants’ contention on this point revolves around their presence at the alleged scene of the crime and whether the Cannabis Sativa was found in their possession. 69. From the record, the Court observes that this question was addressed in various parts of the judgment of the Court of Appeal. For example, at page 15 of its judgment, the Court of Appeal found as follows: We would also wish to make clear that, the fourteen (14) sacks which PW9 received from PW8 is bhang found to be trafficked by the appellants on the strength of evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5, PW7 who were involved in the arrest of appellants, search and seizure of impugned stuff at Hale Police Check Point before they were taken to Tanga police station in town. 70. The Court of Appeal also specifically dealt with the identification of the Applicants. At page 19 of its judgment, the Court of Appeal agreed with the Applicants’ contention that the conditions for their visual identification, by PW6, were not ideal. It nevertheless held that “even if evidence of PW6 is expunged, the remaining testimony of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 PW7 and PW8 cumulatively is to the effect that the appellants were arrested at Hale trafficking narcotic drugs confirmed by PW9 to be bhang.” 71. The record, therefore, demonstrates that there was a cumulation of evidence which established the presence of the Applicants at the scene of the crime together with the impounded Cannabis Sativa, notwithstanding that the evidence of PW6 was disregarded. Before this Court, the Applicants have not made any submissions to impeach the findings of the Court of Appeal. 19