the house that the witness sold, was sold to one Mohammed Umar Yahaya. The witness did not give evidence as to who Mohammed Umar Yahaya is or whether Mohammed Umar Yahaya is the same with Umar Yahaya. This gap cannot be bridged by the court as the court is being prohibited from speculating. Secondly while the document sought to be tendered relates to the sale of a house at Bado Quarters, Sokoto, they amended charge relates to unit of houses at Bado Area, Sokoto. There is a world of difference between a house and unit of houses, this gap cannot also be bridged by the court. By Section 89 (c) of the Evidence Act, 2011 where the secondary evidence of a document is sought to be tendered is sought to be tendered on grounds of lost of the original, then foundation must be led through the evidence of a witness showing the conduct of all possible search of the original and the abortive result to justify the admission of the secondary evidence. On the whole since the charge relates to unit of houses and the document sought to be tendered relates to a house as well as the fact that evidence was not led explaining who is Mohammed Umar Yahaya in content with Umar Yahaya mentioned by the witness, the document sought to be tendered even if appears to in relation to a sale transaction of a house at Bado, it is completely foreign to the charge and the evidence of PW2. According the document tilted “sale agreement between Alhaji Hamza Sidi Mamman Assarakawa and Mohammed Umar Yahaya in respect of the sale of a house at Bado Quarters Sokoto, Sokoto State” sought to be tendered by the prosecution, is Page 14 of 43