collecting money for additional payment of shops for which he already deposited money on behalf of the 2nd Defendant is consistent with his role as agent of the 2nd Defendant, and urged the Court to so hold. On issue 3: whether, considering the evidence before this Court, including all the Exhibits, the 2nd Defendant not the Plaintiff is the bona fide purchaser of shops D11, D02, C03, C04, C07 and C08 situate at EFAB Mall Shopping Complex Area 11, Garki Abuja, the subject matter of this suit. Counsel had argued in issue one that there was no contractual relationship between the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff and therefore, all that the Plaintiff did in connection with the sale and purchase of the 6 no shops namely D11, D02, C03, C04, C07 and C08 was to act as agent of the 2nd Defendant in the process leading to the purchase of the shops. That taking a cue from the procedure for the sale of the shops as highlighted by the DW1, one will agree with the submission that the 2nd Defendant is the person who accepted the offer of the 1st Defendant for the purchaser of 6 no shops. Also, the 2nd Defendant was able to prove by credible evidence that they actually made a deposit for the shops and went ahead to complete payment and then fill the form which was the final stage of the transaction. Consequently, in the case of the Plaintiff, there is ample evidence to show that he never complied with the procedure listed by the 1st Defendant for the purchase of shops from them. Besides, what the Plaintiff alleged he paid for was 4 no shops as against that of the 2nd Defendant which is 6 no shops. All the Exhibits tendered by the PW1 did not conform with his assertion that he made payment of 4 no shops, as payment of money in the bank by a particular person does not conclusively prove the ownership of the money or the source of the money. Again, the PW1 failed to call as witness both the service providers particularly MTN to prove that the alleged text message reportedly sent to his phone was indeed from them or that the messages was indeed from the telephone handset of Stella, a former staff of the 1st Defendant. Neither Stella nor any staff of the 1st Defendant was subpoenaed to come and testify in Court in respect of that particular evidence canvassed by the PW1 in Court. In another submission, counsel submitted that indeed there was no substance in the tellers Exhibits AA1 and AA2 to support the claim that the Plaintiff paid the sum of N22,500,000.00 for 3 no shops or that he 11