3. It is trite that application for recall can be made orally, and there is no law that makes it mandatory that it be by way of a formal application. 4. That appellant was denied the opportunity to cross examine the PW3 and therefore denied fair hearing in disregard of extant authorities of superior Courts on this score. The above ground of appeal does not arise from the judgment of the trial Court delivered on the 4th day of May, 2017 which the appellant has appealed against. The law is settled and it is that a ground of appeal must arise and have its roots from the decision or judgment appealed against. See Ogbe v. Asade (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 106; Achonu v. Okuwobi (2017) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1584) 142 and Umma Mohammed & 23 Ors. v. The Minister, Federal Ministry of Environment & 5 Ors. (2018) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1644) 179. Therefore, ground 3 (three) in the appellants grounds of appeal is incompetent and it is liable to be struck out. The appellant has distilled his Issue 1 from ground three, which I have held to be incompetent. Issue 1 formulated from ground three is incompetent and it is liable to be struck out. 14 The law is that an issue framed from an incompetent ground of appeal should be struck out. See Idika v. Erisi (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt. 78) 563 and Ime Umanah Jnr. V. Nigerian Deposit Insurance Corporation (2016) 14 NWLR (Pt.1533) 458. This issue is accordingly struck out for being incompetent. In case Issue 1, for any reason, is not incompetent, the record of proceedings, summarized earlier in this judgment, shows that the appellant was given adequate opportunity to cross-examine PW3 but he wasted that opportunity by insisting that the learned trial Judge should transfer the case, without advancing a reason for his request.