Mr Moneke: On the 15/3/2013 you told the court .that the defendant paid for your treatment : Exh Cl and C2 the receipts tendered by the defence counsel issued by Niger Optical bears (sic) your name, explain this to the court Ezeno: I object to this question and adopt in its totality my earlier argument, the document referred to is already before the court, the PWl cannot give explanation of document before the court. Moneke: I adopt me argument my earlier argument (sic) in identity (sic) and urge the court to allow the question (sic) answer my question. (See page 33 of the record) . On the 5 th . :,Y~- day of July 2013, the learned trial magistrate delivered its ruling and held inter alia: . ·) y. ,9" . C _,. "it is elementary law that oral evidence cannot be given of contents of documentary evidence . The receipts referred to by the prosecuting counsel are exhibits before the court Exhs "Cl" and "C2" and thus section 129 (3) EA 2011 applies here, particularly where the question asked the witness is to give an explanation why his name is on Exh Cl and C2. Section 129(3) excludes oral evidence to explain the reason or intention of the maker or another of that document. The question as asked by the counsel, seems in my considered opinion to be calling on the witness to interpret or explain the Exhibits and on these grounds I 7 \