the assessment of the national courts that would result in miscarriage of justice. 80. In this particular case, the record indicates that the Prosecution summoned five (5) witnesses. However, the District Court chose to base its decision solely on the accounts provided by three (3) Prosecution Witnesses (PW 1, PW 2, and PW 5), opting to disregard the testimonies of PW 3 and PW 4 due to concerns about their reliability. 81. Furthermore, with specific reference to the Applicant, the trial Court invoked the doctrine of recent possession. This was prompted by the fact that the Applicant was said to have been found in possession of the stolen items just two hours after the incident occurred. Significantly, before the trial court, the Applicant failed to provide any explanation regarding the circumstances under which he came into possession of these items. 82. The High Court differed with the District Court in its reasoning concerning the accuracy of the testimonies provided by PW 1, PW 2 and PW 5, deeming them insufficient. With respect to PW 2 specifically, it expunged his confession for it was obtained illegally under the threat of force. However, the High Court still relied on the doctrine of recent possession and sustained the Applicant’s conviction. 83. The Court of Appeal also conducted a comprehensive review of the trial and High Court records. It concluded that the testimonies of the third and fourth prosecution witnesses (PW 3 and PW 4), which had been excluded from consideration by the lower courts, were “curable”.26 The Court found that the issue was merely procedural, as the testimonies were provided without adhering to the applicable rules governing taking of oath. 84. However, the Court of Appeal still found that the testimonies of PW 3 and PW 4 as well as PW 1 with respect to the identity of the accused, were 26 Judgment of Court of Appeal, p. 6. 21