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 and 3/5/13 for I\ 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 continue . The learned trial magistrate acceded to this prayer. The defence counsel thereafter continued and concluded ( ' the cross - examination of PWl . The particular ruling that gave rise to this appeal was delivered by His th Worship L. C. Okoye Esq. on the 5 day of July 2013 . The ruling was with regard to Exhibits "Cl" and "C2". The two exhibits are receipts issued by Niger Optical in the name of PWl . The prosecuting counsel had asked PWl in re examination to explain why the exhibits bear PWl's name when he had told the court that it was the defendant that paid for his drugs at Niger Opticals. The defence took objection that that such question cannot be raised in re-examination because it would amount to re-opening the case of the prosecution. To this the prosecution contended that the question was meant to explain the discrepancy . The learned trial magistrate took argument from both counsel; and sustained the objection. This appeal is against that ruling. 3