false. They intended that PW1 should act on the misrepresentation and he acted on it by paying the sum of N5,120,000.00 to the defendants. The acts of the defendants fall under the definition of fraud in Onwudiwe v. F.R.N. [supra]. The defence counsel relied on the evidence of PW1 that he was taken to a site where he saw signboard of the estate and tractors opening the roads. Based on this evidence, learned counsel posited that defendants’ project on the land was real. With profound respect, I am not persuaded by this view. It seems to me that since, as I had found, the defendants had no plot to develop and/or sell, the fact that PW1 was taken to a site - where he saw signboard of the estate and tractors opening the roads - strengthens the fact that the defendants’ misrepresentation to PW1 that they had a plot to sell was with the intention to defraud. The inference is that PW1 was taken to a site in furtherance of the intention to defraud. Finally, I have considered the evidence of DW1 that his agreement with PW1 was that the money he paid was to settle the Gwari people for the economic trees on the plots in the estate. My view is that it does not accord with common sense and reasoning that the PW1 agreed to pay money for the defendants to settle Gwari people for economic trees. Moreover, this piece of evidence is not credible in the light of the fundamental fact that the defendants did not adduce any evidence to show that they had any plot of land to develop and/or sell. The defendants ought to have a parcel of land before the issue of payment of compensation can arise. 17