The Appellant instituted an action in the High Court of Kano State against the Respondents in this appeal, over the ownership of a building at No.59B Lamido Crescent, now No.15 Lamido Road Kano and more particularly described in the recertified certificate of occupancy No.LKN/RLS/RC/82/1622. The property was built in 1972 by Arewa Construction Limited for the Plaintiff and he enjoyed peaceful possession of the building until 1977 when it was mistakenly forfeited to the Kano State Oil and Allied Products Ltd. under The Public Officers And Other Persons (Forfeiture of Assets) Order 1977. The Plaintiff petitioned both the Federal and Kano State Governments, and a Federal Investigation panel was set up. The investigation panel found that the property was wrongfully forfeited, and directed the State Government to reconsider the matter in order to redress the injustice done to the Plaintiff. The Kano State Government after a further investigation found that the property was wrongfully confiscated, and the Military Governor of the State wrote to the Plaintiff returning the said property. Series of letter were written to the relevant agents of the Government of Kano State to confirm the return of the property to the Plaintiff. In spite of the letters the 3rd Defendant (a successor in interest to Kano State Oil Mills) has continued to trespass on the property thereby preventing the Plaintiff from enjoying same. The Plaintiff sent series of petitions in respect of this situation, but the 3rd Defendant continued in the trespass. Consequently the Plaintiff went to Court seeking relief.

The 3rd Defendant denied most of the Plaintiff's assertions, alleging that the certificate of occupancy tendered by the Plaintiff was obtained by fraud as a result of destruction of the original records in respect of the premises after a fire outbreak at the Ministry of Land and Survey, Kano. According to the 3rd Defendant, the original certificate in respect of the property in controversy was cancelled by the Kano State Legal Notice No.7 No. 1977. The 3rd Defendant therefore asserted that it had not committed trespass as it had legal and equitable rights to the property.

The Court ruled in favour of the Plaintiff declaring him the owner of the property in dispute. The 3rd Defendant was dissatisfied with the decision, and appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Plaintiff also cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal found the appeal meritorious and allowed it.

The Plaintiff appealed further to the Supreme Court.