“A Cursory look at S.11 of the Act clearly states what a trial court should do whenever it convicts a defendant charged before it for an offence under the Act. The Act further specified what the court should do if what was allegedly defrauded was money or any other property. Section 11 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act 2006 provides as follows: 11(1) In addition to any other penalty prescribed under this Act, the High Court shall order a person convicted of an offence under this Act to make restitution to the victim of the false pretence or fraud by directing that person. (a) Where the property involved is money, to pay to the victim an equivalent to the loss sustained by the victim; in any other case. i.e. to return the property to the victim or to a person designated by him; or ii. to pay an amount equal to the value of the property, where the return of the property is impossible or impracticable. An in-depth reading of Section 11 of the Act clearly shows that it had donated full powers to the trial Court to make an order of restitution, which is an act of giving back to a person something that was lost or stolen, or paying him money for the loss, apart from any other punishment or penalty it might have imposed on the convict. I have read the said provision with the order of restitution made by the trial Court. It seems clear to me that the order is wholly, in accord with the additional power allotted to it by the provision. See EZEANI V. FRN (2019) LPELR-46800(SC) Pg. 23-25. Apart from S. 11 of the Advance Fee Fraud and Other Related Offences Act, part 32 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act also makes similar provisions see also AJIBOYE v. FRN (2018) LPELR-44468 (SC). S. 11(1) (a) of the Advance Fee Fraud Act deals basically with unjust enrichment. Where an individual is unjustly enriched, the law (usually civil law in equity) imposes an obligation upon the recipient to make restitution of the benefit acquired at the expense of another.” Per HELEN MORONKEJI OGUNWUMIJU, JSC in PATRICK EZERIKE V. THE STATE (2022-LCER-46643-SC) at Pp. 45-46; Paras. E-G.