JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Mr. Orengo, learned counsel for the appellant Christopher Raput Opaka, drew our attention to this Court’s decision in the case of ISAAC NG’ANG’A KAHIGA, alias PETER NG’ANG’A KAHIGA, Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2004 (unreported) in which the Court laid down the principles of law applicable in cases in which the doctrine of recent possession is in issue. In that case, the Court stated as follows:-
“ ...It is trite that before a court of law can rely on the doctrine of recent possession as a basis of conviction in a criminal case, the possession must be positively proved. In other words, there must be positive proof, first: that the property was found with the suspect, secondly that the property is positively the property of the complainant; thirdly, that the property was stolen from the complainant and lastly, that the property was recently stolen from the complainant. The proof as to time, as has been stated over and over again, will depend on the easiness with which …