Since the issues identified by the appellant are properly tied to his grounds of appeal and they concisely cover the complaints raised, I adopt them for the determination of this appeal. However, Issues 2, 3 and 4 will be treated together under a single issue as follows: Whether the offence of defilement, with which the appellant was charged, was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt by admissible and credible evidence. The above issue will be numbered as Issue 2, while the 3 appellants original Issue 5 will be re-numbered as Issue 3. ISSUE NO. 1 Whether the appellants right to fair hearing was not violated when the trial Court refused the request of appellants new counsel to re-call and cross examine PW3? Distilled from ground 3. Learned counsel stated that one Omotayo Ibrahim Esq. was initially briefed by the appellant to defend him, but on 14/04/2016 the said Omotayo Ibrahim, Esq. applied to withdraw further appearance on the grounds of failure by the appellant to pay his professional fees and bad behaviour displayed by the appellants parents which he can no longer tolerate. He said that, consequently, Kunle Edun, Esq. appeared for the appellant on 21/07/2016 and applied to recall PW3 but the trial Court refused the oral application on the ground: That such application should be brought formally, stating the grounds for the application to enable the State respond to same. Learned counsel argued that the trial Court was wrong for the following reasons: (i) The respondent never formally opposed the application to recall PW3; 4