ownership of the land in dispute to PW5 and could not have asked the Defendant to sell same to PW2. Having said the above, as I said earlier, by the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5 and 7 and exhibit I and the attached receipt, exhibit 2 and its attachments, and exhibits 6, 6(a) and 9 the essential ingredients of the offence of obtaining by false pretence contrary to Section 1 (1) (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006 have been established by the prosecution in that the Defendant received the Right of Occupancy and the sum of N210,000 from PW7 on the instruction of PW5 with the false pretence of revalidation and recertification of the Right of Occupancy by the Defendant at Abuja Geographic Information System. Further, by the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 exhibits 1 and 9, the false pretence operated in the minds of PWs 5 and 7, and PWs 5 and 7 handed over to the Defendant the Right of Occupancy over plot L84 Dape District for recertification and the Defendant fully know and he was aware that the pretence to PWs 5 and 7 was false. And by the evidence of PW2, 5 and 7 and statement of the Defendant exhibits 6 and 6(a), as a result of the pretence to PWs 5 and 7, the Defendant obtained the sum of N3,900,000 from PW2 by selling Plot L84, Dape District, belonging to PW5, Haruna Audu Mamza. And finally, that the Defendant did the false pretence with intent to defraud. The evidence of PWs 1, 2, 5 and 7, exhibits 1, 2 and the evidence of PW4, the forensic examiner and its report, exhibit 8, the Defendant by raising or preparing false documents of title in order to dispose of the Plot L84 Dape District is a clear demonstration that the Defendant had the intent of defrauding Haruna Audu Mamza, PW5. Thus, having critically examined the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of Count One (1), it is important to note that the terms false pretence denotes the offence of knowingly obtaining title to another person’s property by misrepresentation 23