cla im or charge befo re a co urt t hat co nfe rs jurisdiction on a court, see the case of DAIRO v U.B.N. NIGERIA PLC (2007) LPELR - 91 3 (SC), see also the case of ONUORAH v. K.R.P.C {200S} 6 NWLR part 921_page 393 SC. A look at the char~e before the lower cou rt as shown on page 4 of the re cord of appea l before · me shows that the Appellants are charged w it h co nsp iracy ih Co unt I and attempt to steal in Count II. Both offences are pun ishable under Section 495{a) ;rnd 75 of the Criminal Code Cap 36 Vol. II Revised Laws of Anamb ra State 1991. Both offences are triable before the Magistrate Court as per the punishment it provides upon conviction . I refer all to these sections which is settled . It is the law that jurisdiction of a court is determined b)'.' what is before it, be it a claim, see ONUORAH v K.R.P.C. (supra) - as per civil matters or the charge as per criminal matters . See the case of AMIWERO v AG FEDERATION {2014} LPELR - 23121 {CA) . This charge before me can be tr ied successfully before a Magistrate Cou_rt. Thus the statute in question (Criminal Code) confers jurisdiction on a Magistrate Court to hear and try such a charge . It is therefore strange that this matter .or issue be raised at this stage. A look at pages 32 - 47 of the Record of Appeal as compiled and exhibited before me show that the Pwl testifying before the trial court gives evidence of dismantling of his ma.chine and not only transformer - an example is the answer on page 39 of the same records which Pwl gives in cross examination, see paragraphs 20 - 25 of same and for emphasis I quote it thus Question - "This electric motor armature you referred to it is part of the transformer?" A - "It is not" Further down he affirms ownership of the mach ine, this shows that it is not only a transformer that make up the dismantled items in the sa id count of the This is the Judgment delivered by Hon. Justice D.A. Onyefulu on 3/12/2018 Page 7