International School. Exhibit 4 is a Power of Attorney between the defendant and Dyna Ladejj. Learned counsel to the defendant has made a heavy weather of the description of the property in Exhibits 3 and 4. The property covered by both exhibits is described as Plot No. 4, Block 4. He submitted that the property covered by the certificate of occupancy No. 77/77/73 is Plot 10, Block VI and not Plot 10, Block IV. His contention is that this discrepancy is fatal to the case of the prosecution. P.W.3 while giving his evidence in chief gave an explanation on the discrepancy. His evidence is as follows: “I laid my hand on the agreement made between the defendant and Dyna Ladejj where the plot number was clearly stated as Block 10, Flat 4. On the C of O we have block 10, Flat VI. I therefore went to the Ministry of Lands personally to confirm what really happened on the agreement and the certificate in question. I was told we were talking of the same property. I was told that the error was in the interpretation of the Roman numeral by the person who drew up the agreement. I was told that IV means Six. The person who signed the agreement interpreted VI as number four but that it is the same plot as that covered by the C of O.” The above evidence was not challenged under cross examination. The number of the certificate of occupancy of the land covered by Exhibits 3 and 4 are clearly stated as No. 77/77/73. I have no doubt that the land referred to in Exhibits 3 and 4 is the same as that covered by certificate of occupancy No. 77/77/73 and the subject matter of this suit and I so hold. I find the difference in the block number immaterial to the case at hand and I so hold. There is clear and credible evidence that Exhibits 3 and 4 refer to the same property which is that covered by 22