“When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, customary law or custom, or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, customary law or custom or science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, are admissible.” See also SENATOR OMISORE V RAUF AREGBESOLA, (2015) LPELR 24803 (SC). In the instant case therefore, the evidence of PW4 has not been discredited by the Defence. Hence by the Defendant signing documents marked X and XI, amounts to forgery and the forgery was done by the Defendant and the Defendant knew that he was not Lamar Abba Gana. Thus, the Defendant forged the documents to be acted upon and indeed PW2, Maryam Buba purchased the plot L84 Dape, District on the basis of the forged documents and PW2 also sold to one Okike Godwin Uchechukwu (deceased) from whom exhibit 7 was retrieved by PW3. And as I said earlier, by the evidence of PWs 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and exhibits 2 and attached documents marked X and XI, A – A5, and B – B5, the author of exhibits 6, 6(a) and 6(b) is the author of documents marked X and XI attached to exhibit 2 while the author of documents marked B – B5 is the same person with the signature on exhibit 9, that is Lamar Abba Gana, the husband of PW7. I also take judicial notice of the passport photograph on exhibit 7 to be the passport photograph of the Defendant standing trial in this case before this Honourable Court. Thus, by the avalanche of evidence adduced by the prosecution especially the testimonies of PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and exhibits 2, 4, 6, 6(a), 6(b), 8 and 9, I hold the view that the prosecution have successfully established all the elements of the 30