no longer the law that without ambiguity in cross examination, reexamination is not permissible . Counsel maintained that S. 215(3) Evidence Act does not contain the word "ambiguity" but such can arise in contradictory answers in cross-examination . If so, re-e~amination becomes necessary. He further relied on Anyanwu .V. Uzowuaka (2009} All FWLR (part 499) 41. In conclusion, counsel urges the court to allow the appeal. The respondent's position is that the question asked by the appellant's counsel was not meant to clear any ambiguity but meant to reopen PWl's evidence. That if such is allowed, it is tantamount to giving oral evidence of a document that had been received as an exhibit. The counsel to the respondent maintained that re-examination shall be directed to the explanation of matters referred to in cross examination. Counsel says that the definition of "to explain" is to make clear. Counsel referred to "Hints on Legal Practice" by Anthony Ekindayo @ 237. Counsel further submitted that the only objective of re-examination is to clear ambiguities arising from cross-examination. According to counsel, New Webster's Dictionary defines ambiguity to mean "the quality of having more that one meaning, an idea, statement or expression capable of being understood in more than one sense." That it is only such that a witness can be given an opportunity to make it clear through re-examination . Counsel maintained that PWl's answer in the cross examination was clear and no ambiguity was occasioned. Counsel cited S223 of Evidence Act. Counsel further relied on Ezemba .V. lbeneme & Anor (2004) All FWLR (part 223) 1786 @ 1861. Counsel submitted that when a witness contradicts himself under cross llj f) a ge