After the several adjournments and unsuccessful efforts by the Prosecution to execute the warrant of arrest on the Defendant, the Court granted the application of the Prosecution, invoked Section 352(4) of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act, 2015 and ordered the trial of the Defendant in absentia. The case was then adjourned to the 21st of June, 2017 for hearing. At trial, the Prosecution called three witnesses and tendered five documentary exhibits, which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits PW2A, PW3A, PW3B, PW3C, and PW3D. At the conclusion of the evidence in chief of each of the Prosecution witnesses the matter was adjourned to afford the Defendant the opportunity to appear and cross examine the witnesses on their evidence, even though a trial in absentia had been ordered by the Court. Despite those opportunities, the Defendant never resurfaced to cross examine the witnesses. Consequently, Defendant’s right to cross examine the witnesses was foreclosed and the witnesses were discharged, after which the Prosecution closed its case. When the matter came up on 15th March, 2018 for defence, the Defendant and his Counsel on record were as usual absent, despite hearing notice served on the law office of the Defence Counsel on record. The Defendant’s right to defend the suit was therefore foreclosed and the matter was adjourned to the 8th of May, 2018 for adoption of final addresses. On the 8th of May, 2018 when the Prosecution’s final address was adopted, the Defendant and his Counsel on record were absent, despite hearing notice served at the law office of the Defence Counsel on record. 4