the PWl) . For proper understanding, let me briefly state the facts leading to this appeal. The pwl is the complainant in charge No. MAW/28c/2009 -;f· 0 . P.. V. Cyprian lzuogu . On the 2/11/2009, he gave his evidence in chief and was partly cross examined by the defence counsel. The case was adjourned to 7/12/12. (See pages 5 - 10 of the record) . Nothing was shown on the record to explain what transpired in court on that 7/12/12. However, what followed in the record are the proceedings of 30/1/13. -Nonetheless, on the 30/1/13, the defence counsel continued the cross examination of PWl. It must be noted that G. u. Muoneke Esq, was recorded as prosecuting with the Attorney - General's fiat whilst Amaka Ezeno, Esq was defending in all the proceedings aforementioned . Yet, the said defence counsel, could not finish the cross examination the learned trial magistrate "reluctantly" adjourned the case to 1/3/13 , and 15/3/13 for continuation of hearing. .· 0 ~ff'~i·;, D -· . On the 1/3/15, the prosecuting counsel was recorded to be absent in court but the defence counsel and her team of lawyers were in attendance. Amongst several other reasons the learned trial magistrate adjourned the case to 15/3/13 for continuation of hearing. 2 Ir .:1 ~ , ·