On the 15/3/13, both counsel were recorded to be present . The defence counsel continued the cross examination; yet again, the cross examination was not concluded . The learned trial magistrate adjourned the case to the following dates : 12/4/13, 28/4/13 an i 3/5/13 for continuation . {See pages 16 - 24 of the record) . For inexplicable reasons, at least from the record, there were no records of what transpired on 12/4/13. I cannot see in the record why the case was heard on 26/4/13 instead of 28/4/13 earlier indicated . On that 26/3/13, the prosecuting counsel appeared not to be in attendance . However~ one Mr. M . I. Anushiem, informed the learned trial magistrate that his principal prayed the court to allow the cross examination of PWl to cont inue . The learned trial magistraJe acceded to this prayer. The defence counsel thereafter continued and concluded the cross - examination of PWl. Before I proceed, it is significant to state the questions and answers during the PWl's cross-examination on the 15/3/13. That day, both the prosecutor and defence counsel were present . The following were part of what transpired between the PWl and the defence counsel : "Q. Did u write your statement at the police that deny (sic) the ~l ," d.J -- incident happened . Ans . We went to the CPS and then to the Area Command before we then went to the C. 0 . P. Then I wrote a petition to the C. 0 . P. then directed the state C. I. D. to handle the matter. I wrote my statement at state C. I. D. 3 I~ ·,