Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) he approached the 1st Defendant to find out what the issues were but the 1st Defendant told him there was a slight misunderstanding between him and PW3 which would be settled in no time but up until the time of giving evidence had not been settled. PW2 during cross –examination said he believed the 1st Defendant when he represented to him that the owner of the plot of land is his relative. He said the iron rods supplied to 1st Defendant were not paid for but 1st Defendant told him to deduct it from the outstanding purchase price for the plot of land he bought. He also said he does not know if 1st Defendant used the proceeds to develop the property but learnt that the issues between the 1st Defendant and the Petitioner (PW3), bordered on the purpose for which the proceeds from the sale of the plots of land were used. PW2 was discharged. FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA AND KAYODE GABRIEL ADENIJI & 2ORS 9