my conclusion that Pax Education Resource is the owner or allottee of the Plot.” Both the 1st and 2nd Defendants and the evidence of DW2 could not explain to the Court the Plot that was first allocated to Pax Education Resource Limited before the replacement with Plot SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III. The human error and the resolution of the double allocation as claimed by the 1st Defendant, the 1st Defendant jettisoned their own procedure with an idea of replacement in order to justify the deprivation of Plot SSI granted to Fine Trust Academy. The prosecution has discredited both the evidence of DWS 2, 4 and 6 as regards replacement and their evidence is unreliable in the instant case. Hence, therefore, as I said before, DW2 is not a witness of truth including his Investigation Report, exhibit 21. The evidence of DW3 further confirms that it was PTA (Nigeria) limited that applied for allocation of Plot from Abuja Municipal Area Council and not Pax Education Resource Limited. While the evidence of DW5 only strengthened the case of the prosecution especially when DW5 testified under cross examination as follows: “I can see exhibit 13. The assessment fees have been paid into Abuja Municipal Area Council coffers. Before the assessment of fees, there must have been an allocation.” Thus, by the evidence of DW5 under cross examination, Plot SS1 Jikwoyi Extension III was duly and rightly allocated to Fine Trust Academy and Fine Trust Academy paid the Right of Occupancy Rent and fees and was issued a receipt by Abuja Municipal Area Council, exhibit 13. DW5 did not deny exhibit 13 emanating from Abuja Municipal Area Council and the receipt exhibit 13 is a certified true copy. The evidence in-chief of DW5 is that the Right of Occupancy Rent and fees attached to exhibit 5 was purportedly said to have been signed by him. DW5 did not categorically disown or deny that the assessment fees attached to exhibit 5 was not signed him but his quarrel was with the format used which the assessment document did not carry the characters. 52