tendered relates to one Mohammed Umar Yahaya and that no proper foundation was led in the evidence as to who Mohammed Umar Yahaya is and finally submitted that while the document sought to be tendered relates to a house, the charge relates to blocks of houses. He therefore submitted that on the basis of the above and the lack of proper foundation, the document is not relevant to this case and urge the court to reject it because even if a document is relevant it can also be inadmissible in law. In his response, the prosecuting counsel submitted that the court can infer from the evidence of the witness that since he informed this court that the original is lost, it means all efforts to trace the original proved abortive. He submitted that even though the document sought to be tendered carries the name of Mohammed Umaru Yahaya and not Umar Yahaya, there is substantial compliance with the law to justify the admissibility of the document sought to be tendered. He submitted that the defence counsel is only being technical and has gone to issue of weight to be attached to the document when we are dealing with issue of admissibility. He finally urge the court to discountenanced on the submission of the learned defence counsel and admit the document sought to tendered in evidence. From the evidence of PW2, the witness testified to the fact that he sold his house to one Umar Yahaya which he inherited from his elder brother and that the original is lost. He said he had already photocopied the original and kept even before the original was lost. From the summary of the evidence of PW2, what he sold was a house to one Umar Yahaya, but the document sought to be tendered shows that Page 13 of 43