Resource while by exhibit 10, the 1st Defendant, is a Director of PTA (Nigeria) Limited. Thus, apart from Joseph Jande being the General Manager of Pax Education Resource and a second cousin of the 1st Defendant, the 1st Defendant being a Director in PTA Nigeria Limited and PTA Nigeria Limited being a Director of Pax Education Resource, and the testimony of PW4 and the travails of PW4 in respect of Plot SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III, there exist credible evidence by the prosecution to establish the interest of the 1st Defendant in Plot SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III. Further, by the testimony of PWS1, 2, 3 and 4 and a close look at the statements of the 1st and 2nd Defendants, exhibits 11 and 11 (a) including their elicited evidence during cross examination by the prosecution, it is crystal clear that the 1st and 2nd Defendants inappropriately or unlawfully used their positions or office to deprive the Proprietor (PW4) of Fine Trust Academy plot No SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III which plot had already been allocated and charted in favour of Fine Trust Academy. Earlier, I have established by the credible evidence of PWS1, 2, 3,4, exhibits 9, 10 and the statement of the 1st Defendant, exhibit 11 and his oral testimony under cross examination by the prosecution of the interest of the 1st Defendant in plot SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III, it is not however possible to link the interest of the 2nd Defendant to plot SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III. Thus, therefore, I hold the view that the ingredients of the offence of conferring unfair advantage under section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Act , 2000 have been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the 1st Defendant and I so hold. The 2nd Defendant, on the otherhand, as I said before, there is no credible evidence to prove that the allocation relates to him or any of his associate. Consequently, the 2nd Defendant is discharged and acquitted on the offence of conferring unfair advantage under section 19 of the Corrupt Practices and other Related Offences Act. In relation to the offence of conspiracy under section 26 of the Act as defined by section 96 of the Penal Code, both Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants dissipated a lot of energy in submitting that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of an agreement by the Defendants and that all the prosecution witnesses testified that they are not aware of any alleged 42