On the second issue, whether in the circumstances of this case it will not be improper for the Court of Appeal to tamper with the findings of fact of the Trial Court, learned counsel submitted relying on Mini Lodge Vs. Ngei (2009) 12 SCNJ 93 at 104 and Amadi v. F.R.N (2005) 18 NWLR Part 1119, 259 at 267 and 268 that the evaluation of evidence remains the exclusive preserve of the trial Court because of its singular opportunity of hearing and watching the demeanour of witnesses as they testify and thus the Court is best suited to assess their credibility. Where therefore a trial Court makes a finding as to the credibility of a witness an appellate Court would not ordinarily interfere. Contending that the findings of the trial court were not perverse and ought not to be interfered with, counsel urged us to dismiss the appeal as lacking in merit. RESOLUTION I shall begin by considering appellant's issue 2, the count of conspiracy. In the case of Obiakor v. State (2002) 10 NWLR (Part 774-776) 612 @ 628-629: Kalgo JSC discussed the nature of the offence of conspiracy thus: "Conspiracy as an offence is the agreement by two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. The actual agreement alone constitutes the offence and it is not necessary to prove that the act has in fact been committed. Because of the nature of the offence of conspiracy, it is rarely or seldom proved by direct evidence but by circumstantial evidence and inference from certain proved acts......................And for circumstantial evidence to ground conviction, it must lead to one and only one conclusion i.e the guilt of the accused See Popoofa v. Commissioner of Police (1964) NMLR 1; R. v. Roberts (1913) 9 CAR 189 Raphael Ariche v. State (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt302) 752. The facts to be relied upon for conviction must be consistent, cogent and must irresistibly lead to guilt of the accused......." Further in the case of Clark v State (1986) 4 NWLR (Pt. 35) 381 @ 394 H, Kolawale JCA delivering the lead judgment observed: "What then is the nature of evidence required in a case of conspiracy of this kind? Generally, it may be stated that where persons are charged with criminal conspiracy, it is usually required that the conspiracy as laid in the charge be proved, and the person charged be also proved to have been engaged in it I think it is well recognized in law that it is not necessary that it should be proved that the appellants met to concoct the scheme which led to the theft of the subject aircraft-------------I believe that the essential ingredient of the offence of conspiracy or the gist of the offence lies in the bare engagement and association to do an unlawful thing which is contrary to or forbidden by law, whether that thing be criminal or not, whether or