The 1st plaintiff/ respondent story was that it operated 3 accounts in the appellant bank and sometime in December 1971 was issued a guarantee by the defendants at the request of 1st plaintiff to Messrs koka Tovarwazravil Pharmaceutical and chemical works Titova Yugoslavia. The guarantee was secured by a legal mortgage of the 2nd plaintiff's property known as plot 4 Block LXVI Ilupeju Scheme Layout Lagos. In addition to the legal mortgage the second respondent also deposited with defendant/appellant his Niger Insurance Company life insurance policies were both valued at N2000.00 each at that time. The first respondent lodged with the defendant for safe-keeping certain other documents. These are documents relating to property at No. 38 Ikorodu Road, Igbobi, No.10 Alli Balogun Industrial Estate, Ikeja, and No. 35 Breadfruit, Lagos. On the 5th of May 1973, the 2nd plaintiff was given 14 days to liquidate the outstanding sum of N55983.21. It s his story that by June 1973, all outstanding money had been made to Messrs Koka Pharmaceutical and Chemical Works Titova of Yugoslavia thus relieving the defendant/appellant of further obligation under the contract. Not withstanding persistent demands for the return of all documents lodged with the appellant, it refused to release any of them. The defendant/appellant even refused to make available to the first respondent of the nature of account he has with the bank and went on to credit one of the live accounts with the ones he was owing. To alleviate his problems he went to Barclays' Bank who promised to take over the matter and grant him facilities on the condition that he collected the documents hither to lodge with the appellant with which he used to secure new facilities. As a result of the refusal to release the documents the plaintiffs/respondents could not obtain any facility to continue this business he had secured and by the refusal incurred financial losses of immense magnitude. The documents were only released after he had paid again for a debt he was not owing and when the court ordered the appellant to release the documents. The appellant disputed the claim and argued it rightly held on to the title because the title deeds i.e. all of them were security for the debt owed. It further stated that all the title deeds said to have been deposited for safe-keeping were indeed further collateral's to secure the facility provided by the bank.

The High Court gave judgement in the respondents' favour and awarded a sum in excess of N2 million as damages.

Both the appellant and respondents were dissatisfied. They respectively appealed cross-appealed.