I the deceased victir 1, Philip Meka did not allow her do so . She reported his said 1el J.sal to her elder brother, the deceased 1 st Defendant, who told he deceased victin1 to allow her harvest the said fruits , but th1 · de_c eased victi1n still refused. Deceasec1 1 st Defendant then adv s ~d her to leave it and go and she heeded' the advice . There was r o altercation between the trio. She had a very cordial relationship A ith the deceased victim because they were the closest amongst all 1 r eir siblings. secrets and had ne, T They discussed freely and shared had problen1s with each other. When the deceased victi1n, Pl i ip Meka had a stroke, he carne to her for prayers . She did no : go her parents' house on the 17 th of March 2013 , and did 11ot b ~:1t .or quarrel with the deceased victim Philip Meka . · At the close of he~11 ing, the l~arnecl prosecuting Principal State Counsel, S. N. Nwar ~gbo -Ezeaputa Mrs ., and Defendant's learned Counsel, John Oguej )for Esq ., filed their respective Final Written Addresses wherein hey presented issues for detern1ination and made copious submi sions . Defendanf s learned Counsel presented a sole issue for deter: 1iriation as follows : Whether or not the prosecution has proved a case of m urcler against the Defe 1dant. The learned prosecu jng Principal State Counsel adopted the said sole issue for detern in~tion presented by the Defendant's Counsel. Defendant's learned I Oltnsel also filed a Reply on Law. Both the learned D {ence Counsel and the learned Prosecuting Counsel s ubmitted a i d I agree with them that the Courts have, in a plethora of judicial , uthorities held that in establishing a case of , . f ', !ll/. r, ./; 3