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~
·,