Exhibit DB8 – DB18 i.e. judgment in suit no: HC/FCT/CV/1059/2009 are the same shops in issue in this suit. Also the question that readily come to mind is, did the 1st Defendant herein repurchase the said shops from the Defendant in Exhibit DB8 – DB18 (supra) and sold same to the Plaintiff. No such evidence is before this Court which means at all material time the shops in issue had been sold by the 1st Defendant to some other person other than the Plaintiff. this much I hold is the evidence of the Plaintiff himself as contained in Exhibit DB8 – DB18 i.e. judgment in suit no: HC/FCT/CV/1059/2009. The witness statement on oath in Exhibit DB8 – DB18 (supra) was adopted by the Plaintiff in that suit as his evidence. I hold therefore that it is evidence which this Court can look at in determining this suit. The law is that a Court of law in reaching a decision in a suit before it is enjoined to take cognizance of all the documents in its file see the case of Agbo V. The State (2007) 10 WRN 95 @ 107. Furthermore evidence at variance with the Exhibit is not to be believed by the Court see the case of Ukaegbu V. Nwololo (2009) 3 NWLR (pt. 1127) 194 @ 209 paragraphs E – F. In the instant case therefore, I am unable to see my way through how the Plaintiff can turn around after admitting that the property in issue had been purchased by some other person from the 1st Defendant and now said the property belong to him and should be given to him. That would amount to a “Double Speak” a legal summersault of a monumental dimension. A witness cannot blow not and cold at the same time, it is interesting to note that the same Plaintiff who is claiming payment of the shops in issue was said to have been issued a receipt by the 1st Defendant when he submitted the said bank teller. The receipts were in the name of the 2nd Defendant and they were given to the Plaintiff. There is no evidence before the Court to show that he protested the issuance of the 21