“… I, entirely, agree with these findings that there is no evidence, even if believed, upon which the Court could have made a finding that the appellants stole N86,900,000 and N7,900,000. 00, subject of Counts 5 and 6, Oshinye v Commissioner of Police (supra); Chianugo v State (supra); Adejobi v. State (supra); R. v. Ninedays (supra); Onimisi Ukana (alias Jaguda) v COP, Benue State (supra); Smart v. The State (supra); Clark and Anor. v. The State (supra); Babalola and Ors v The State (supra); Alake and Anor v. The State (supra); Ekuma v COP (supra); The Queen v. Nwankwo (supra); R. v Williams (supra); Eze v State (supra); Onagoruwa v The State (supra). Put differently, the Prosecution did not succeed in establishing an essential element in Section 383 (2) (a) (supra), that is, ‘an intent permanently to deprive the owner of the thing of it,’ Oyebanji v. State (2015) LPELR – 24751 (SC) 16 -17; Mohammed v. The State [2000] FWLR (pt.30) 2623, 2626; Adejobi v. The State [2011] 12 NWLR (pt 1261) 347, 377: Oshiriye v. COP [1960] 5 SC 105; Chianugo v. The State [2002] 2 NWLR (pt. 750) 225. In the circumstance, I am left with no choice than to set aside the judgment of the lower Court and restore the findings and ruling of the trial Court. Appeal allowed. I hereby enter an order setting aside the judgement of the lower Court.” Per NWEZE, J.S.C. at P. 9, Para. A.