“ Whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the 1st Defendant that requires the 1st Defendant to enter his defence in this case.” As rightly submitted by the learned prosecuting Council, a prima facie case is not the same thing as proof beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, at the close of the prosecution’s case, when a no case submission is made on behalf of an Accused person, the position of the law was aptly captured in the case of IKENNA ISIBOR V THE STATE, (2018) LPELR 44834 where the Court of Appeal, Benin judicial Divisions says:“When, after the prosecution has closed its case, a no case submission is made by the defence, all that is required of the trial Court to formally justify its decision is to say whether or not the prosecution has made out a prima facie case requiring an explanation from the Accused person. The trial Court, at the stage of ruling on a no case submission, is not expected to formally evaluate the evidence, ascribe probative value thereto and make specific findings of fact to determine if the evidence is sufficient to justify a conviction. The trial Court, where it dismisses a no case submission, should be brief so that the merits of the substantive case will not be jeopardized or prejudiced.” See also FAGORUWA V STATE, (2014)10 NSCC 309 AND OKOOGOR ADANA V STATE, (2018)3 NWLR (pt1605) page 94. Arising from the above, it is the case of the 1st Defendant that the witnesses called by the prosecution especially PWS1,3 and 4 exonerated him from the commission of the offence as the prosecution failed to established mens rea and actus reus. Further, the 1st Defendant’s Counsel submitted that PW2 never testified that the title documents are forged but only testified that they are not within the approved planning layout. 10