See pages 17- 20 of the reco rd The above underlined portion of the proceeding appears to be the genesisofthisappea l.lalsounderli nedsamefor t hesake of emphasis On the 14/6/13, Mr. Muoneke, the prosecuting counse l, in re~ examinationputthefoll owingquesti ontothePWl. "Q. During cross-examination on 15/3/13, you told the court that the 20 th Feb. 2009 on wh ich day the o ffence was committed thatyouwenttoC. P. S.andonthe21"beingSaturdayyouwent to Area Command and in the follow ing week you now petit ioned the C. 0. P., my question is how come f)(h B the petition bears 21/2./2009,beingaSaturday" To the above re -exa min~tion question, the defence cou nse l object ed on the ground that the PWl should not be ;illowed to reo pen his c;ise ;ind repair his contradictions occasioned by a cro ss examination and such if allowed would be prejudic ial Both co unsel addres sed the learnedtria lmagistrateonthisissue On the S/7/2013, the learned tri;il magist rate gave her ru ling. She disal lowed t he re-e~amination quest ion . In other words, she upheld the objection of t he defence counsel and d irected the witness not to an swer the question . The tria l co urt f urther dir ected the counsel to rephrase the question. (See Generally pp. 30and46oftherecord)