identification of an accused made under unfavourable conditions, unless the judge is fully satisfied that the witness is telling the truth, Counsel for the Applicant concluded that "in view of the inconsistencies, the Court could not have been satisfied that the witness could identify the accused with those who committed the robbery under those unfavourable conditions ". 167. At the same hearing and in regard to the identification of the Applicant, Counsel for the Applicant maintained that no identification parade in respect of the accused was even carried out. 168. In its Response, the Respondent State refuted the allegation that the sole witness was not telling the truth, and demanded that the Applicant provide concrete proof of this allegation; adding that the Evidence Act does not prescribe the number of witnesses required to prove any fact. 169. It further requested the Court to apply the doctrine of margin of assessment, as there is established case law in the Respondent State which states that a conviction can be based on the evidence of a _ single witness, provided the trial magistrate is satisfied that the witness is telling the truth.21 170. In conclusion, the Respondent State contends that the argument of the Applicant that his conviction based on the identification by one witness is irregular and baseless , since the highest court of the land has deemed witness is permissible only that as long as the trial court a conviction based on a single is satisfied with the credibility of the witness and the circumstances of the identification of an accused; and consequently, that the allegations of the Applicant lack merit and should be dismissed with costs. 171. At the Public Hearing, the Respondent State’s representative reiterated this position. 21 The Respondent State cites the Matter of Hassan Juma Kanenyera and Others v. United Republic of Tanzania (1992) TLR, 100] and the Matter of Waziri Amani v The Republic (1980) TLR, 250. 46 Q yf ce— 0 ~°