Learned counsel for the defendants posited that from the evidence of PW1 and DW1, it is evident that the defendants’ project was real. This is because PW1 stated that when he was taken to the site, he saw the defendants’ sign board and tractor clearing the site; and that he did not visit the site again. PW2 did not visit the site. It was argued that the delay in allocating the plot to the PW1 was circumstantial; orchestrated by the act of the natives which took time to resolve. Counsel posited that the intervention of the natives exonerates the defendants from criminal liability. It was submitted that the defendants had no intention to defraud the public. Mr. Osuwa Okechukwu referred to Alade v. Aborisade [1960] 5 FSC 167 to support the principle that he who asserts must prove. He concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt when it could not establish that the estate is non-existent, noting that title of the estate is not in dispute. For his part, learned counsel for the prosecution referred to the case of Alake v. State [1991] 7 NWLR [Pt. 205] 567 for the ingredients of the offence of obtaining by false pretence. Counsel argued that the defendants’ assertion that they started clearing the land when the natives chased them away demanding the sum of N28 million is completely misleading and untrue. Mr. Tahir pointed out that in the extra-judicial statement of DW1, he stated that he had made application to the FCT Minister to procure a parcel of land; but as at the time he was making the statement, the land had not been approved. According to learned counsel, the question is: “how will then the Defendants go ahead clearing a land that was never allocated to 10