Appellants to clarify. On the second count of attempt to steal, he subm its that the Respondent failed to lead any credible evidence to establish - prima fac ie ingredients of the offence, relying on the case of JEGEDE v STATE {2001) 14 NWLR part 733 page' 264 per Belgore JSC. He also cites the evidence of the prosecution and quotes them to show that they failed to ma~e out a prima I facie case against the Appellants . He also refers the court to Sections 37.Jand 38 of the Evidence Act 2011 as most of the evidence were hearsay evidence which the learned Magistrate failed to discountenance, he also relies on the case of EKPO v STATE {2001) 7 NWLR part 712 at page 304. He submits also that apart from constituting hearsay the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are hollow, empty and discredited under cross examination and gives instances including different times of the complaint being incidented at the Police station showing unreliability of the prosecution evidence . He subm)ts in conclusion that calling the Respondents to enter their defence amounts to calling them to defend their innocence which is contrary to Section 36(5) oLthe Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended. He urged this appellate court to allow the appeal for the reasons given above. In the written address of the Respondent, the matter is also introduced and two issues for determination formulated thus 1. Whether the lower court was right in refusing the application for the No Case Submission and order the applicants to open their defence. 2. Whether the lower court has jurisdiction to try the offence which the applicants were charged. With leave of court sought, the learn~d Respondent's counsel argues the· two issues together. He submits that it is trite that in considering a No Case Submission, the trial court does not go into the · merit (sic) of the case but rather consider if a prima facie case has been made out against a defendant This is the Judgment delivered by Hon . Ju stice D.A. Onyefulu on 3/12/2018 Page 4