the offence charged on the grounds that the act of forgery was not his own act and he did not authorized it. And that by the testimony of DW2, the 2nd Defendant has discharged his burden and he is entitled to be discharge and acquitted. The counsel for the 3rd Defendant on the 20th April, 2018 filed their final written address. And at paragraphs 3.2.1- 3.2.6 submitted whether the prosecution has proved the charge against the 3rd Defendant. For the offence of obtaining money by false pretence contrary to section 1 (1) (a) and punishable under section 1 (3) of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, 2006 against the 3rd Defendant, at paragraphs 4.4.1- 4.4.6 of the final written address, learned Counsel stated the essential elements of the offence of obtaining money by false pretence which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt against the 3rd Defendant. He referred and relied on the cases of REV. VICTOR MUKORO V FRN (2015) LPELR 24439 (CA). As to whether the prosecution has proved the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 1 (1) (a) and punishable under Section 1 (3) of the Act, learned Counsel asked the question whether there as a representation from the 3rd Defendant to PW1 or his agents on the authenticity of Plots ED3, ED4, i.e. exhibits 1 and 2? He submitted at paragraphs 4.11 – 4.23 of his address that it was not the evidence of PW1 or any of the witnesses before this Honourable Court that the 3rd Defendant made any representations or gave any assurances to either PW1 or his Agents, 2nd Defendant or PW3 as to the genuineness of exhibits 1 and 2 or the existence of Plots ED3 and ED4, the subject matter of this suit. He stated that the 3rd Defendant is not an Agent of PW1 but an Agent of 1st Defendant and that it was the 1st Defendant that represented to the 3rd Defendant that Plots ED3 and ED4 were owned by the companies as shown on the offer letters, exhibits 1 and 2. Counsel submitted that exhibits 1 and 2 were handed over to the 3rd Defendant by the 1st Defendant 17