the subject of double allocation while the second person will be reallocated and replaced. In the case of RAPHAEL OKOCHA V MOSES O. IRUBOR & ANOR (2013) LPELR 20756, the Court of Appeal, Benin Judicial Division held thus:“Indeed, the law is well settled and firmly established and beyond reproach that where two persons, lay claim of title to a parcel of land, allegedly allocated to them by a common grantor, the first on time clearly takes priority, because it is stronger in law. Therefore, in law and also in equity, the doctrine is that estates and interests created thereon primarily rank in the order of their creation. So he who is earlier- or first in time is stronger in equity. That is the rationale for the maxim, qui prior est tempore est jure.” See also the cases of AYANWALE V ODUSANMI, (2010)12 SCNJ 362, ERO V TINUBU, (2012) 8 NWLR (pt1301) page 104, 1BBI V MUTUNCI CO. (NIG) LTD, (2012)8 NWLR (pt1297) page 487 at 524 and OKELOLA V ADELEKE (2004)7 SCNJ 103 at 111. Now if what the 2nd Defendant stated in his statement, exhibit 11 (a) is the procedure and confirmed by the evidence of PW2, the Resident Zonal Surveyor, why did the 2nd Defendant acted otherwise? The first statement of the 2nd Defendant was made on 5th June, 2013 when the facts of the case were so fresh in his mind and he clearly admitted signing the two allocation documents i.e that of Fine Trust Academy and Pax Education Resource. However, in his second statement made on the 5th July, 2013, one month or thereafter making the first statement, the 2nd Defendant in his 2nd statement stated that due process was not followed in the file of Fine Trust Academy. The 2nd Defendant in his 2nd statement however stated that in respect of obtaining TDP for Pax Education Resource, due process was followed. He however agreed that the two signatures on the allocation papers are his but there is a question mark on that of Fine trust Academy because it is laminated. Further, in his testimony as DW6, the 2nd Defendant set up another version of his case thus:38