When an electronically generated document which has been admitted in evidence, upon fulfilling all preconditions and it is not taken as read by consent, then it ought to be demonstrated or played to prove facts alleged otherwise it remains closed or a sleeping document." In the case of DICKSON V SLWA (SUPRA) (P 209, paras. B-D) The court went on to hold that electronically-generated documents must be demonstrated in open court so as to afford the proponent of the documents the opportunity of linking them with their averments in their pleadings and evidence on record, but more importantlv with a view to opportunity of testing and contesting their accuracy in the usual adversarial method of cross-examination. A.P.G.A. V, AL-MAKURA (2016) s NWLR (PT. 1sO5) 316; OKEREKE V. UMAHI (2016) 11 NWLR (PT. L524) 438; ONIBUDO V. AKrBU (L982)7 SC 60. The learned trial judge at page I47 of the record said "Furthermorq thrs court examined the video recording, Exhibit P1/P2, several times the video over and over again. At 02:35 02:58, 05:23 etc.... and proceeded to analyze and compare their Exhlbit Pl and P3 as per the ingredients of kidnapping ..." This means that only the learned trial judge saw and viewed it in private, this amounts to cloister justice and examining evidence in the secret of the private chambers of the trial court. In HON HENRY SERIAKE DICKSON V CHIEF TIMIPRE MARLYN SLWA & ORS (2016) LPELR-4L257 (SC), AKAAHS JSC at page 67-69 held; cA.AS.40C.2o22 L7 |Pa6;c