20th October, 2015 attached to exhibits 2 and 4 marked “X” with the name Lamar Abbagana was signed by the Defendant and the Defendant by exhibit 6, admitted to swearing to the affidavit. Also, the learned prosecuting Counsel referred me to exhibits 2 and 4 wherein attached and marked Xi is a federal capital Territory application for re-certification certificate of and re-issuance of occupancy dated 30th November, 2005 with the name of Lamar Abbagana but bearing the passport photograph of the Defendant and signed also by the Defendant. And the Defendant by exhibit 6, admitted to filing the recertification form. Further, at pages 11 and 12 of the final written address of the complainant, the learned prosecuting Counsel referred me to the testimonies of PWs1 and 4 and document marked A- A5 and B – B5 with the disputed documents marked “X” and “X1” the prosecution submitted that by the methodology used by PW4 he came to the conclusion that the author of the known specimen signature marked A-A5 also signed the deponent and Applicant column of the disputed documents marked ‘X’ and “X1”. She submitted that the evidence of PW4 was not discredited in the course of cross examination and she referred me to section 68 of the evidence Act, 2011 and urged me to accept the evidence. Furthermore, the learned prosecuting Counsel urged me to take judicial notice of the passport photograph on exhibit 7 and the 13