(pt. 349) 157 and Motunwase V. Soroungbe (1988) 4 NWLR (pt. 92) 90. “A party can only rely on the weakness of the defence where the Defendant case supports his case. See the cases of Eze V. Atasie (2000) 10 NWLR (pt. 676) 470 and Shittu V. Fashawe (2005) 14 NWLR (pt. 946) 671. Whether the Plaintiff has prove this state of affairs as outlined above can only be glean from the set evidence adduce by him before the Court. I must make haste to say, that all through the pleadings before this Court, the Plaintiff never make any allusion as to the 2nd Defendant being liable to him in anyway. So there seems to be no claims against the 2nd Defendant in this matter. Be that as it may and put in a nutshell, the case of the Plaintiff bothers on breach of contract and this Court will proved to examine the pleadings of the Plaintiff and the evidence proffered in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the Plaintiff has proved his case. From the pleadings and reliefs claim by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff asserts that the 1st Defendant is in breach of the contract between it and the Plaintiff in relation to the four (4) shops which according to the Plaintiff he paid for but the 1st Defendant refused to hand over to him after completing the building. Was the question is, was there any contract between the parties? According to the Plaintiff, he bought the shops at the rate of N7, 500,000.00k (Seven Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) per shop. He claimed that he had paid the total sum of N22,500,000.00k (Twenty Two Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) to the 1st Defendant as full payment for three (3) of the shops while making a part payment of N6,900,000.00k (Six Million, Nine Hundred Thousand Naira) as part payment for the fourth shops leaving a balance of N600,000.00k (Six Hundred Thousand Naira). According to the Plaintiff, he made this payment to the 1st Defendant through its account No: 236435081101 which the 1st Defendant maintained with Finbank. It is the Plaintiff’s evidence that the duplicate 18