The court considered whether the appellants were denied a right to a fair hearing that is, legal representation at the expense of the state. The court held that art. 28(3)(e) of the Constitution which provided for legal representation at the expense of the state where an accused was facing a trial on a charge which carried a death sentence or life imprisonment was mandatory. The court was satisfied that the appellants were represented by a lawyer on state brief until when the notified court that they had another lawyer to represent them. The court accordingly concluded that the appellants were not denied their right to a fair hearing.

The court considered whether the trial judge erred to base the appellants’ conviction on the evidence of a single identifying witness. The court held that a court could convict on the evidence of a single identifying witness alone upon warning itself of the danger of the possibility of mistaken identity especially where there were factors which presented difficulties for identification at the material time.  The court was satisfied that the conditions under which the witness identified the appellants favoured correct identification and as such, it could alone hold a conviction. The court accordingly concluded that the appellants were properly convicted.