The parties to this action used to form part and parcel of Rivers State which was created in 1967 from the former Eastern Region of Nigeria by virtue of the provisions of the States (Creation and Transitional Provisions) Act 1967 and remained so until 1996 when the said Rivers State was split into Rivers State and Bayelsa State by virtue of the provisions of Decree No. 36 (now Act) of 1996 known as States Creation and Transitional Provisions Decree No.36 of 1996. Following the creation of the two states an Assets sharing Committee was set up by the Federal Government of Nigeria to take inventory of all properties including buildings and equipment of the old Rivers State, articulate acceptable formula for the sharing of all assets and liabilities between the affected States, effect smooth redeployment of all public servants or staff to their states of origin, recommend joint undertakings where need be between the said States, make recommendations for shouldering responsibility for pensions and gratuities for employees and retirees of the States, ensure that all projects and their liabilities are taken over by the Government of the states where the projects are sited and make recommendations on any other matters in the spirit of equitable sharing of the assets and liabilities of the states. The committee became known as the Salihu Committee which produced a report, Exhibit BSDN or CB 1 in which it approved the sharing formula of 51 % and 49% in favour of Bayelsa and the new Rivers States respectively for the assets and liabilities of the old Rivers State.

On 5th August, 1997 an Implementation Committee of the findings of the said Salihu Committee was inaugurated by the Federal Government of Nigeria saddled with the responsibility of sharing and implementing the approved recommendation of the said Salihu Committee in favour of new Rivers State and Bayelsa State. The new Committee was headed by Navy Commander Afolayan. It studied the report of the Salihu Committee and the approved recommendations and other relevant materials and eventually rendered a report on the Asset and Liability Sharing Implementation Committee in three volumes made up as follows:-

The case of the Plaintiff, is that the recommendation, of the Assets sharing Committee, the Assets Implementation Committee, the directive of the Head of State, the provisions of the agreements dated 14/1/1997 and 14/10/1997 had not been fully carried out as the Defendant put a stop to the implementation and failed/neglected to carry out the said recommendations, agreements and directives.

The Plaintiff laid claim to wholly and partly owned Companies, buildings residential and commercial, cash balances, undeclared funds and other assets which the Plaintiff alleged she was excluded from sharing.

The Defendant resisted the Plaintiff's Claim and made some Counter-Claims. The Defendant also pleaded special defence of limitation of action in answer to the Plaintiff's Claim.