Counsel submitted that it is settled principle of law that where there is oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, the documentary evidence should be used as a hanger for which to assess the oral testimony. He cited the cases of Fashanu V. Adekoye (1974) 6 sc 83; Kindey V. Military Gov. of Gongola State (1988) 2 NWLR (pt. 77) p. 445; Hawad International Schools Ltd V. Mina Project Ventures Ltd (2003) 39 WRN 57 at 69 and Submit Finance Company Ltd V. Hon. Baba & Sons (2003) 48 WRN 81 at 105. Counsel then submitted that applying this principle of law to the Plaintiff’s evidence before the Court, the Plaintiff’s oral testimony/evidence before the Court is inconsistent with the documentary evidence i.e. Exhibit DB8 DB18 before the Court. I.e. the judgment of Court, payment receipt for purchase of EFAB shops etc. He stated that it is also settled law that more weight and value is to be accorded documentary evidence than oral testimony, as oral testimony could be deceptive and misleading but documentary evidence cannot. He referred the Court to the case of Udeora V. Nwakonobi (2003) 4 NWLR (pt. 811) p. 643 at 674h – 655b. Counsel submitted that Plaintiff is not a witness of truth as he has not been consistent in his testimony. He stated that where there is inconsistency and or contradiction in the testimony or evidence of a party, the only option available to the Court is to throw out/discard the entire evidence. Counsel further submitted that he that alleges must proof Citing section 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act, 2011. On issuance of purchase receipt of EFAB mall shops in 2nd Defendant’s name: that it is a settled Supreme Court decision that a certificate of occupancy properly issued by a competent authority raises the presumption that the holder is the owner thereof in exclusive possession of the land. The certificate also raises the presumption that at the time it was issued, there was not in existence a customary owner whose title has not been revoked. The presumption is only rebuttable if it is proved by evidence that another person had a better title to the land before the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, in which case the certificate of occupancy will stand revoked by the Court. He referred the Court to the case of Grace Madu V. Dr. Bertram Madu (2008) 6 NWLR (part 1083) p. 296 at 302. 6