It appears from the judgment of the lower court that the trial court glossed over all the foregoing evidence before it when it was evaluating the evidence before it which thereby renders the evaluation of the trial court defective and improper. It is trite law that when the complainant of the appellant is against nonevaluation or improper evaluation of evidence by the trial court, the appellate court is in a good position as the trial court to do its own evaluation, and to do so is not an usurpation of the province of the trial court as failing to do so is an abdication of responsibility. - Mathew V. State {2019} NWLR pt 1675 p 461 at 477 - Adesina V. Ojo {2012} 10 NWLR p 552 - Basil V. Fajebe {2001} 11 NWLR pt 725 p 529 - Bashaya V. State {1998} 5 NWLR pt 550 p 351 In view of the re-evaluated evidence above, it is the humble view of this court that the prosecution has proved the second element that the disposal of the ginger at a lower price as well as using part of the complainant’s money to buy Sobo was not authorized by PW1. As to the 3rd element that the respondent did as above in violation of the expressed contract he made concerning the trust, from the available evidence before the lower court as substantiated by the evidence of PW1, respondent as DW1 and the substance of the extra-judicial statement of the respondent admitted as exhibits A and A1, the ginger Page 22 of 25