whether a terse judicial remark that section 293(2)(a) and (b) CPA was complied with sufficed, and whether assessors were properly directed. The Court found the s293 requirement satisfied by the remark but concluded the trial Judge failed to explain to assessors the ingredients of murder and the requisites for recent possession. Citing authority that non-direction on vital legal points vitiates a trial, the Court exercised revisional jurisdiction under section 4(2) AJA, quashed the conviction and death sentence, and ordered a retrial before a different Judge and assessors, with the appellant remanded in custody pending the new trial. Issues Whether a bare remark by the trial Judge that section 293(2)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Procedure Act was complied with suffices to call upon the accused to make his defence? Whether the trial Judge adequately summed up the case to the assessors by explaining the ingredients of murder and the doctrine of recent possession? Whether failure to direct assessors on vital points of law (ingredients of the offence and recent possession) vitiates the trial proceedings? Whether the Court should invoke its revisional jurisdiction to nullify proceedings and order a retrial where assessors were not properly directed? Held The Court held that the trial Judge’s brief remark that section 293(2)(a) and (b) had been complied with was sufficient in the circumstances to satisfy the requirement that the accused be addressed about his mode of giving evidence, relying on prior authority that the critical question is whether any injustice was occasioned by omission. The Court held that the trial Judge failed to put to the assessors the ingredients of the offence of murder and the legal pre-requisites for relying on the doctrine of recent possession, errors which are material and render the assessors' assistance valueless if they do not understand the law as applied to the facts. The Court held that non-direction or misdirection to assessors on vital points of law is fatal to the trial; citing authorities, the Court found the failure to direct assessors on murder elements and recent possession vitiated the whole trial. The Court invoked its revisional jurisdiction under section 4(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act to nullify the High Court proceedings, quashed the conviction and death sentence, and ordered a retrial before another Judge and a different set of assessors, while the appellant remains in custody pending retrial. Order The Court invoked its revisional jurisdiction under section 4(2) of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and nulled the entire proceedings of the High Court. The resultant conviction and sentence are quashed and set aside. It is ordered that the appellant should be tried afresh as expeditiously as possible before another Judge and a different set of assessors. In the meantime, the appellant shall remain in custody as he awaits the resumption of the trial. Order accordingly.