- Kachi V. State (2015) 9 NWLR pt. 1464 p. 213 at 234-235. - Ogwumba V. State (1993) 5 NWLR pt 296 p 660. - Oladejo V. State (1994) 6 NWLR pt 348 p 101. - Edet V. State (2014) LPELR 23124. Defence counsel in his argument at paragraphs 4.1.26 – 4.1.28 of their adopted written address submitted that even if there was robbery, the robbery was not an armed robbery as there was no evidence of use of arms. It was his submission that even the cutlass that was recovered allegedly, the person who recovered it was never called to give evidence. He further argued that since the incident happened around 10:45pm in the night when the vision is impaired, the evidence of PW4 who gave evidence of what happened cannot be relied upon to fix the Defendants to the robbery scene and commission of all the offences against them. He finally concluded by submitting that the prosecution having failed to prove all the elements of the three (3) offences with which the defenders are charged, the Defendants are entitled to be discharged and acquitted and urge the court to do so. In his reply to the submissions of the defence counsel, the prosecuting counsel submitted that the requirement of the law with respect to conspiracy is for the prosecution to establish meeting of the minds of the conspirators and some community efforts on the part of the accused persons aimed at committing a crime. He argued that by Exhibits A, B, C, D, G and G1 and the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, it is conspicuously clear that the Defendants did conspire to commit the offences in question and urge the court to hold that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Page 11 of 27