On the response of the State, I told her that I would make the application to Court and if it is refused, I will be prepared to open my defence immediately. In the circumstances my Lord, I humbly apply to recall PW3. The trial Court then ruled as thus: COURT: The application to recall a witness who has been discharged, in my humble view, is not one that can be made orally. Such an application should be 12 brought formally, stating the grounds for the application to enable the State respond to same. Mr. Edun said, after the above ruling, that: My Lord, I am prepared to open my defence and the appellant proceeded to testify in his own defence. Ground 3 of the appellants grounds of appeal is as follows: GROUND THREE The trial Court erred in law when it denied the appellant the opportunity to cross examine the PW3 (IPO) when his new counsel took over the conduct of his defence, thus violating his constitutional right to fair hearing. PARTICULARS 1. It is on record that one Tayo Ibrahim Esq. conducted the defence of the appellant from the beginning and partially cross examined PW3, when the case was adjourned by the trial Court for continuation of cross examination of PW3. Tayo Ibrahim Esq., subsequently withdrew from the case and never concluded the cross examination of PW3. 2. The appellants new counsel, Kunle Edun Esq., who took over the conduct of the defence ex gratis on the 21st of July, 2016, applied that PW3 be recalled for further cross examination. This application was refused. 13