000505 it was alleged he robbed the Complainant, prosecution Witness 1 (pWl) of. He states that the prosecution failed to provide substantial proof of pw1's ownership of the property in dispute. 63. The Respondent state avers that the Applicant's conviction was based on the doctrine of recent possession which the Court of Appeal found to be in line with its jurisprudencr- in Paulo Maduka & 4 others v the Repubtic of ranzania, that: "the presumption of guilt can only arise where there is cogent proof that the stolen things possessed by the accused is the one that was stolen during the commission of the offence charged...". The Respondent state argues that the said court found this doctrine to have been properly invoked and applied by the trial court. The Respondent state further adds that it was the Applicant who led the Police to the place where the stolen goods were stored and that the owner of the alleged stolen properties identified the goods as being his property. 64. Article 7(2) of the charter provides that "No one may be condemned for an act or omission which did not constitute a legally punishable offence at the time it was committed. No penalty may be inflicted for an offence for which no provision was made at the time it was committed. Punishment is personal and can be imposed only on the offender." 65. The court notes from the record that, during the investigation phase, it was the Applicant who led the police to his house where the stolen goods were found and their rightful owner, Gregory John Kazembe, identified these goods as his property. 66. The court equally notes that the court of Appeal examined all the pleadings by the Applicant regarding the issue of the doctrine of recent possession and decided to uphold the District Magistrate's and High court's decisions that the Applicant's conviction for armed robbery and sentence of thirty (30) years, imprisonment should stand. 18 .a \-___-,-