them?” On the submission of defence counsel that PW2 did not visit the site, Mr. Tahir argued that the evidence of PW2 was that all efforts for the defendants to present any document to prove the existence of the said land proved abortive. Thus, there was nothing to direct PW2 to any land. In the case of Aguba v. F.R.N. [2014] LPELR-23211[CA], it was held that the fundamental ingredients or elements that are required to be proved to establish the charge of obtaining money by false pretence are that: i. There was a pretence; ii. The pretence emanated from the accused person; iii. The pretence was false; iv. The accused person knew of the falsity of the pretence, or did not believe its truth; v. There was an intention to defraud; vi. The property or thing is capable of being stolen; and vii. The accused person induced the owner to transfer his whole interest in the property. See also the cases of Onwudiwe v. F.R.N. [2006] 10 NWLR [Pt. 988] 382 and Alake v. State [supra]. All the ingredients except the fifth will be taken together. The evidence of PW1 is that he was taken to the land on 22/5/2013; there, he saw signboard of the estate and tractors opening the roads. Thereafter, he met the 1st 11