(ii) The counsel earlier briefed by the appellant did not conclude his cross-examination of PW3 before he withdrew from the case; (iii) The same trial Court adjourned the case two times for further cross-examination of PW3 to enable the appellant to get a new lawyer because the appellant could not cross-examine PW3 on exhibits B and C tendered by PW3; and (iv) There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Law of Delta State requiring an application to recall a witness to be by way of formal motion. Counsel cited the cases of Ally v. State (2010) All FWLR (Pt.546) 444 at 453 455, per Ngwuta, JCA (as he was then) and Kejawa v. State (2013) 3 NWLR (Pt. 134) 380 and contended that the application to recall PW3 ought to be granted. He urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the appellant and nullify the entire trial since the refusal by the trial Court to grant the application to recall PW3 was a violation of the appellants constitutional right to fair hearing. In response, learned counsel for the respondent referred to record of proceedings in the trial Court on 5 10/03/2015; 14/04/2016 and 16/06/2016 and contended that: The appellant counsel withdrew from representing the accused at the trial Court and the Court gave him ample time to search for a counsel of his choice to represent him in Court which he failed, refused and neglected to do. The action of the appellant in a case of this magnitude smacks of carelessness and indifference on the part of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the case of Ogbodu v. Odogha (1967) 1 All NLR 173 and submitted that the power to recall a witness should be exercised with great care and only in exceptional circumstances.