judgment of the trial court the Appellant filed a notice of appeal on the 8th of October 2003 and appealed to this Court. Appellant's brief was dated and filed on the 26th of January 2005 but was deemed properly filed and served on the 15th of September 2005. The Respondent did not file the Respondent's brief even though the statutory period allowed for the Respondent to do so have lapsed. Appellant subsequently filed an application on the 21st of November, 2005  to hear the appeal on the Appellant's brief alone in default of the Respondent's brief. Application was granted on the 8th of April 2009. At the hearing of the appeal, learned Counsel for the Appellant adopted his brief and relied on the arguments contained therein.  Respondent's Counsel was served with the hearing notice. Appellant's Counsel distilled four issues for determination from the five amended grounds of appeal as follows: (1) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in law to convict the Appellant of the offence of murder without first taking all the evidence before the Court into consideration. (2) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in law to convict the Appellant of the offence of murder even though the prosecution did not investigate, at all, the defence of alibi made by the Appellant to the police ever before the Appellant was arraigned in court. (3) Whether the learned trial Judge was right in law to: (i) receive the sworn testimony of a child in evidence without first determining whether the child was sufficiently intelligent to understand questions put to him and (ii) Conduct part of the trial of the Appellant in a language neither understood by nor interpreted to the Appellant. (4) Whether the learned trial Judge was right, in law, to convict the Appellant of murder when the prosecution did not prove its case against the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt. A cursory look at the issues formulated by learned counsel for the Appellant reveal that Issues 1 & 4 are fragmented and split to the extent that they can be said to be proliferated as far as the primary complaint of the Appellant against the decision of the lower court is concerned. The point dealt with in the two issues by learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the prosecution did not adduce material and sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the Appellant beyond reasonable doubt as required by law. To avoid repetition issues 1 & 4 will be dealt with together in this judgment. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the learned trial Judge believed and accepted Exhibit B as the confessional statement of the Appellant without considering and evaluating the contradictory testimonies of P.W2 & P.w4. He argued that the failure of the learned trial Judge to consider the testimonies of P.W2 and P.W4 made it impossible for the trial court to resolve the contradictions between these testimonies on one