The ratio decidendi of this case is that a trial court must thoroughly evaluate all evidence and defence arguments presented by the defendant before applying legal presumptions related to possession and trafficking of narcotics. Specifically, the court must ensure that the defendant’s claim of lack of knowledge or non-ownership of the drugs is supported by reasonable grounds and evidence. Failure to do so, particularly in assessing whether the presumption of possession applies and whether the defence negates the presumption, constitutes a procedural error that can lead to an unfair trial. Moreover, the proper application of the law requires that the presumption of possession be considered as rebuttable, and the burden to disprove or explain possession rests with the prosecution once the defence raises credible grounds. The appellate court emphasized that courts must not merely accept denials but must critically evaluate the evidence supporting such claims to ensure a just outcome (!) (!) .