filed on 7/3/2014 as duly adopted before thi s cou rt as what is paramount is to see that justice is done at the end of the day. The appellants in their written address introduced the matte r and form ulated two issues for determinat ion from the two grounds of appeal. The two issues are : i. Whether the lower Court has jurisdiction to the offence wh ich J he Appellants were charged . ii. Whether the Respondent made out a prima facie case ag~inst the Appellants . In his arguments under issue one, learned Appellants ' counsel argues that from the evidence of the Pwl el icited under cross exam ination shows that the alleged dismantled transformer is a public property owned by PHCN ,a Federal Government Parastatal and any offence re lating to it comes under Section 1 of Miscellaneous Offences Act Cap Ml 7 which confers exclusive jurisdiction over such offences on the Federal High Court. He goes on to cite and quote Section 1(1) of the Act. According to counsel, this means that the Magistrate Court is robbed of jurisdiction to try this offence as the Respondents brought the charge under Section 75 of the Criminal Code which is of general provision while the Miscellaneous Offences Act makes it mandatory that such an offence should · be heard by the Federal High court alone . This makes the charge defective ab initio. On issue two, learned counsel argues that the Respondent failed to make out a prima facie case against the Appellants as they failed to make out the elements of conspiracy which he lists, and cites the judicial authority of IBRAHIM v STATE (2011) 1 NWLR part 1227, 1 at 33. He also refers the court to the evidence of the Pwl to Pw4 which failed to show the elements of conspiracy and wondered where the lower court got its unresolved issues it wanted the This is the Judgment delivered by Hon. Justice D.A. Onyefulu on 3/12/2018 Page 3