"whether the trial magistrate erred in law when she upho ld t he submissions of the defence counsel and disallowed the question put by the prosecuting counsel to p.W .1 in re -exam inat ion on the ground that the question was not directed at clearing ambiguity but rather seeks to reopen the evidence of PWl and to give oral evidence of the document which is already an exhibit before the COLI rt?" The two issues raised by the parties appear to be similar. However, I would resolve this appeal on the issue formulated by the respondent . , .__ -~,- --\,,~; - / -~ ~ ~ r;f•-,·----~ \ \• .x<r . ' , I ~ ; ~, _,,. Before I do that, I must emphas ize the point that this appeal was consolidated with Appeal No A/8CA/2013 - C.O .P. Vs . Cyprian lzuogu . Despite this, I decided to deliver the ir j udgments separately. They share the same facts and the same principles of law apply to each of them. It is a apposite that it is imperative to recall what took place on the 15/3/2013 with respect to exhibits Cl and C2. Let me quote the excerpts of the proceedings that day. I quote verbatim: Q: How many times did you go to Niger Optical to buy drugs? A. I went on Saturday 21 5 \ I went back on Monday morning the Niger Optical informed me that the defendant paid no other money that the treatment they gave me only covered only the Nl000 the defendant paid, so I was not entitled to any drugs. 5 ;