Conviction on circumstantial evidence

My uncle was recently convicted of murder. There was no eye witness to the murder and my uncle was convicted just because he was the last person to be seen with the deceased. I do not think the Court made a justifiable decision. Is it proper for a Court of law to rely on circumstantial evidence? Kindly guide me.
LM, Kigoma

In the administration of justice, Courts prefer direct evidence since it is based on a witness’s knowledge of facts and links the accused person directly to the crime. Nonetheless, Courts may in some instances grant conviction solely on circumstantial evidence. There are several cases where the Courts have articulated the basic test that must be fulfilled for conviction to rely solely on circumstantial evidence. In summary, Courts have a settled view that the said circumstantial evidence must lead to the inference that it was the accused and no one else who committed the offence. Further, such evidence must also be incapable of any other interpretation than pointing towards the guilt of the accused. You will note that this is a very difficult test and that is why circumstantial evidence is relied upon in very few exceptional cases. Since we do not have all the facts on your uncle’s case, we cannot comment on his conviction. You might still be within your right to appeal and you should pursue it if you think this was a wrong conviction. Your lawyer can guide you further.