The Appellants were charged and convicted before the trial court with one count of armed robbery. PW1, the victim of the robbery testified that he was asleep at his home on the material night when he heard a knock on his door and opened the same to find four people who asked him for a place to sleep. He welcomed them, but soon after they entered, they put him under restraint and demanded for a muzzle gun, rifle and money. Although he managed to escape, those people, who were armed with machetes and guns, chased him and caught up with him. He was assaulted with the blunt sides of machetes, but escaped again and raised an alarm causing people to come there. When he returned home, he found his two guns, a muzzle riffle, a knife, children’s clothes and 5,000/= had been stolen and the thugs had escaped. PW1 identified the 4th Appellant who was related to him by aid of a lamp in his house. PW1 did not explain the type of lamp that was at his house and where the same was placed when the thugs entered his house. PW1 further testified that the thugs had chased after him outside where he was able to identify the Appellants by aid of moonlight. PW1 did not describe the thug’s appearance. PW2, the 1st Appellant’s ex-girlfriend, testified that on 12th January 2009 at 23.00 hours, the 1st Appellant and an unidentified person visited her home and had a gun and a saw. The two had cut the gun with the saw into pieces and had thrown it into her pit latrine and threatened her not to reveal the incident to anybody. They then left. However, in the morning, she reported the matter to the village secretariat. On 19th January 2009, the police came and fished out the gun pieces from the latrine. PW3 testified that the Appellants were arrested on different dates. Upon arrest the 1st Appellant confessed to these allegations and named his accomplices to the incident as the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Appellants. The 1st Appellant was also found upon arrest to be in possession of a home-made rifle and seven bullets. The fourth Appellant was also arrested and revealed where the gun used in the robbery had been hidden on his farm. He showed the same to the police. The third Appellant was said to have confessed to these allegations and his cautioned statement was admitted.