and that the 3rd Defendant placed reliance on exhibits 1 and 2 as genuine and according to Counsel, it is up to the buyer to do his due diligence which by the testimony of DW2, PW1, the 1st Defendant and himself (3rd Defendant) proceeded to Abuja Municipal Area Council to conduct a search which result of the search okay the plots for purchase. Learned Counsel then submitted that none of the witnesses for the prosecution gave evidence to the effect that the 3rd Defendant gave PW1 assurances that plots of land were genuine. Learned Counsel further referred me to the elicited answers under cross examination of PW1’s admission that he contracted at least two persons, one of them PW3 his brother and relative to verify the authenticity of exhibits 1 and 2. He then contended that the elicited evidence from PW1 under cross examination is corroborated by the testimony of PW3 who stated that he gave exhibits 1 and 2 to the 2nd Defendant to conduct a search. He also stated that PW3 testified that the decision to purchase the plots by PW1 was on the advice of the 2nd Defendant, Mr. Augustine James and not hinged on any representation from the 3rd Defendant. However, learned Counsel for the 3rd Defendant submitted that assuming but not conceding that the 3rd Defendant made any such representations as to the authenticity of exhibits ED3 and ED4 to PW1 or his Agents, such representations has not been shown to be the reason why PW1 parted with the sum of N8,500,000.00 as PW3 stated that the decision to buy the plots emanated from DW2, the 2nd Defendant. On whether the prosecution established that the 3rd Defendant made any representation which was false to the knowledge of the 3rd Defendant, at paragraphs 4.44 – 4.53 of the address of the 3rd Defendant, learned Counsel submitted to the effect t that the prosecution failed to establish the ingredient. He relied on the evidence of PW3, Emmanuel Ikhuria and that of PW1 that they conducted independent search through the 2nd Defendant, PW1’s 18