who has practiced for many years as an accountant would deal with such a huge amount without any form of documentation. This Honourable Court cannot believe such frivolous claim. He urged the Court to discountenance the testimony of DW2 for lack of credibility and reliability and declare that she is not a witness of truth. Counsel submitted that it is trite that whoever wants the Court to grant judgment in his favour based on the existence of any fact must prove that such fact exists. The Plaintiff has denied that the 2nd Defendant gave him money to purchase shop. The 2nd Defendant having failed to prove that it actually gave the Plaintiff the money cannot disprove the claim of the Plaintiff and have judgment in its favor. This he urged the Court to so hold. That various oral testimony of the Defendants in relation to the fact in issue which is the ownership of the sum of N29, 400,000.00 (Twenty Nine Million, Four Hundred Thousand Naira). Paid to the 1st Defendant cannot be allowed to vary the compelling documentary evidence in support of the Plaintiff’s claim. Counsel submitted that the trite position of law is that oral evidence is inadmissible to vary, add or contradict the contents of a document. He cited the cases of Ogundele & Anor. V. Agiri & Anor (2009) lpelr-2328 (SC), Per Muntaka Coomassie, JSC at pages 24 -25, paragraphs C – A.; Union Bank Of Nigeria Ltd V. Professor Albert Ojo Ozigi (1994) LPELR – 33 89 (SC), Per Adio, JSC at page 15 , paragraphs D – E and Biosola Nigeria Ltd & Anor V. Afribank Nigeria Plc & Ors. (2013) LPELR – 22062(CA), Per Iyizoba, JCA at pages 34 -35, paragraphs G – A. That it is a settled law that where there are both oral and documentary evidences the Court is enjoined to use the latter as a hanger to test the veracity of the former. He cited the cases of Egharevba V. Osagie (2009) LPELR – 1044 (SC), Per Ogbuagu, JSC @ pages 34 – 35, paragraphs E – A.; Jinadu & Ors V. Esurombi – Aro & Anor (2009) LPELR – 1614 (SC), Per Oguntade, JSC at pages 32, paragraphs A – F; and Abubakar V. PWaspo (2012) LPELR – 9786 (CA), Per Ekpe, JCA at page 21, paragraphs C – F. Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff has proved that he paid for the shops and at no time authorized the 1st Defendant to transfer the payment in favour of the 2nd Defendant. DW1 (the 1st Defendant’s manager) corroborated the fact that payment to any person or 3rd party. He referred the Court to DW’s answer to question put to him by the Plaintiff’s 14