4. Whether the Learned Trial Judge erred in law when he visited the sin/mistake of counsel on the litigant by refusing to acknowledge the mistake made by Appellant's Counsel during the hearing of the case and relied upon the mistake. The Respondent filed its brief on the 26th of February, 2014 but deemed properly filed and served on the 26th of February, 2014. Both parties on the 25th February, 2014 the date fixed for hearing of the appeal adopted their various briefs and relied on them in furtherance of their various submissions. ISSUE ONE Counsel submitted that in the first trial court, the trial Judge took evidence from an eyewitness PW 1, Blessing Peter Asuquo, (an infact)' When the trial started de novo before another Judge, the A.C.R tendered the evidence of PW1 and it was admitted as Exhibit B See Shurumo Vs. The State (2001) 196 LRCN. Counsel submitted that there were grownups in the house when this incident took place and none was invited to testify. Counsel further submitted that the judgment of the trial court was unreasonable as the evidence of PW1 an infant, needed to be corroborated. Section 209 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 provided the mode an infant can testify. Section 209 provides. "in any proceeding in which a child who has not attained the age of 14 years is tendered as a witness, such child shall not be sworn and shall give evidence otherwise than on oath or affirmation, if in the opinion of the court, he is possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of his evidence and understands the duty of speaking the truth". Also, section 209 (3) of the Evidence Act, 2009 provides that; "a person shall not be liable to be convicted for an offence unless the testimony admitted by virtue of subsection (1) of this section and given on behalf of the prosecution is corroborated by some other material evidence in support of such testimony implicating the Defendant." Counsel contended that the trial Judge relied so much on Exhibit B, the statement of the infant in his judgment. Counsel argued that the absence of corroboration of the evidence of the infant was fatal to the case of the Prosecution See Sambo Vs. State (1993) 6 NWLR pt 300 page 399 at page 419, Agenu Vs.