In the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory Holden at Abuja and in suit No. FCT/HC/CV/278/2005, the appellants herein and two others commenced this suit against the respondents as the defendants jointly and severally and claimed against them in their Amended Statement of Claim sought several declarations.

During the prolonged and protracted trial that spanned 3 years after the parties called evidence and closed their cases, the learned trial judge ordered written address to be filed by each the defendants and the plaintiffs respectively the order for address was made on 23/1/2008 and the matter was adjourned to 25/2/2008 for the adoption of the final address. On the 25/2/2008 the plaintiffs filed applications asking for stay of proceedings pending appeal. The learned trial judge refused the applications for the stay of proceedings thereafter the learned trial judge closed the issue of final written address since the plaintiffs have failed to file any written address ordered since January and the matter was adjourned for judgment to 7/4/2008. On the 7/4/2008 when the matter resumed, the learned counsel for the appellants herein filed a motion to discontinue with the matter already earlier on adjourned for judgment.

After hearing arguments of counsel in the matter, the learned trial judge adjourned the matter for ruling on the application to discontinue with the suit to the 16/4/2008. On the 16/4/2008, the learned trial judge refused the application to discontinue with the suit and thereafter proceeded to deliver his judgment in the substantive suit. Whereat he dismissed the plaintiffs' suit as lacking in merit.

The appellants herein felt dissatisfied with the Ruling and the Judgment of the trial court and appealed to the Court of Appeal. At the Court of Appeal, learned counsel for the appellants therein who are also the appellants herein, formulated and submitted two issues for the determination of the appeal. The issues were:-

Was the learned trial judge right when he refused the appellants' application for discontinuance of the case and proceeded to enter judgment against the appellants?

Was the learned trial judge right when he held that the 2nd appellant was validly expelled from the party when no such relief was sought by the parties".

In its determination of the issues submitted to it, the Court of Appeal held that the learned trial judge exercised his discretion properly in refusing to allow the application to discontinue the matter having regard to the stage the matter had reached. On the second issue, the court also found that on the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned trial judge was right to have dismissed the appellants' suit before him. The appellants still felt unhappy with the decision of the Court of Appeal and filed a further appeal to this court.