ground that the question was not directed at clearing any ambiguity but rather seeks to reopen the evidence of PWl and to give oral evidence of the document which is already before the court ." I\ It is my view that the two issues for determination pdsed by both counsel are one and the same thing except to say the ~espondent's counsel added other amplifications and embellishments. I would, however, decide this appeal on the appellant's issue for determination. This appears to me to be tangent on the disputed point. It was the contention of the appellant that the learned trial magistrate erred in upholding the objection on the ground that the respondent's objection was contrary to the law . Counsel for the appellant cited the following : Ss. 214 and 215 of the Evidence Act and submitted emphatically thus : " In the process of cross examination of a witness, there might be contradictions in evidence adduced in proof of a party's case which would be fatal where they are material. They relate to facts forming the plank or basis on which the Case of the party is built. In other words, the contradictions must involve crucial facts necessary for the resolution of the issues in controversy between the parties." ,-·-- ~ C":"'7,,;:., \ .Xlf'i~~-. -- ' (;!f_JJ!_~\I ,_ ... - Counsel called in aid the case of Fatoba .V. Ogundahinsi (2003) 4 NWLR (Part 840) 323 @ 330. He cited "Practical Approach to Criminal Litigation in Nigeria" by a learned author:J. A. Agbaba, who had opined 9j fl ,7 f f' \