of the appellant's prosecution witness number one (hereinafter called the PWl) . For proper understanding, let me briefly state the facts leading to this appeal. I· I_\ The pwl is the complainant in charge No. MAW/28c/2009 - C. O. P.. V. Cyprian lzuogu . On the 2/11/2009, he gave his evidence in chief and was partly cross examined by the defence counsel. The case was adjourned to 7/12/12 . (See pages 5 - 10 of the record). Nothing was shown on the record to explain what transpired in court on that 7/12/12 . However, what followed in the record are the proceedings of 30/1/13 . Nonetheless, on the 30/1/13, the defence counsel continued the cross examination of PWl. It must be noted that G. U. Muoneke Esq, was recorded as prosecuting with the Attorney - General's fiat whilst Amaka Ezeno, Esq was defend ing in all the proceedings aforementioned . Yet, the said defence counsel , could not finish the cross examination the learned trial magistrate " reluctantly" adjourned the case to 1/3/13 and 15/3/13 for continuation of hearing . · court but the defence counsel and her team of lawyers were in attendance . Amongst several other reasons the learned trial magistrate 2 ~ .~~k~fs<- : JsswTI~1· On the 1/3/15, the prosecuting counsel was recorded to be absent in adjourned the case to 15/3/13 for continuation of hearing . L