of fact(s) with the intent to defraud. In the case of CHUKWUEMEKA AGUBA V FRN, (2014) LPELR 23211, the Court of Appeal on the meaning of the offence of obtaining by false pretence held thus: “False pretence means a representation, whether deliberate or reckless, made by word, in writing or by conduct of a matter of fact or law, either is false in fact or law, and which the person making it knows to be false or does not believe to be true.” In the instant case by the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 and exhibit 1, the false representations of the Defendant that the process of revalidation or recertification was still on going until PW5 visited Abuja Geographic Information System and discovered alarming facts about Plot L84 in which by the evidence of PW2, Maryam Buba and exhibit 5 as well as the evidence of PW1, the Defendant had sold out Plot L84 Dape District at the cost of N3,900,000 to PW2. Thus, therefore, by the evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of Count 1, I hold the view that the prosecution had established the elements of the offence of obtaining by false pretence against the Defendant beyond reasonable doubt and I so hold. In respect of Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5 against the Defendant, as a recap, Count Two (2) is for the offence of forgery of a general form of Affidavit, Count Three (3) is fraudulent use as genuine a form of Affidavit while Count four (4) is forgery of application for Re-certification and Re-issuance of Certificate of Occupancy of the Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory dated 30th November, 2005 with intent to defraud while Count Five (5) is fraudulent use as genuine an application for Re-certification and Re-issuance of Certificate of Occupancy of Ministry of the Federal Capital Territory dated 30th November, 2005. 24