The court found that the appellants were found in recent possession of items stolen from the complainant's hotel, which were positively identified by the complainant. The doctrine of recent possession was properly applied as the items were recovered within two days of the theft, and the appellants failed to provide any plausible explanation for their possession. The court rejected the appellants' defences as bare denials and noted contradictions in their claims of being students. The trial court's conviction was affirmed as well-founded. However, the appellate court found that the 1st appellant was a minor at the time of the offence and should have been sentenced under Section 191 of the Children’s Act. Given that both appellants had already served two years, the sentence of three years imprisonment was set aside and substituted with a sentence of time served, and both appellants were ordered to be released unless otherwise lawfully held.