The 1st appellant applied to the 2nd appellant on the 6th of August, 1981 by a letter - Exhibit A for the grant of a piece of land to build an hotel thereon. The application was granted as per a letter - Exhibit B, dated the 14th day of April, 1983.

On meeting the conditions stated by Exhibit B, the 1st appellant was issued a certificate of occupancy No. NC 8128 - Exhibit C, the terms of which granted right of occupancy to the 1st appellant on the land in dispute for a period of 40 years commencing from the 14th day of April, 1983. Consequently, the 1st appellant applied to the Kaduna Capital Development Board for permission to fence the land in dispute. The permission was granted by the board on the 11th day of May, 1983. Sometime after the grant of right of occupancy to the 1st appellant, he noticed that some concrete structures were being constructed on the land. On making inquiries he discovered that it was the respondent that was responsible for the building of the structures. The 1st appellant lodged a complaint with the Ministry of Lands and Survey, Kaduna State. The latter had the land in dispute inspected by its officials. On receiving confirmation of the complaint, the ministry issued instructions to Kaduna Capital Development Board to demolish the structures and this was done. The respondent was asked to remove his building material from the land but he failed to do so and instead he continued to remain on the land. The 1st appellant reported the refusal by the respondent to the Kaduna Captial Development Board and the Divisional Police Officer, in charge of the police station at Sabon Gari, Kaduna, but to no avail. Hence the institution of the suit by the 1st appellant in the High Court.

The respondent contended that the land in dispute was first allocated to one Muhammadu Lawal Mohammed on the 21st day of December, 1982 by the Secretary to Kaduna Group of Local Governments vide Local Government Certificate of Occupancy NO. 033742. The allottee sold the piece of land to the respondent for the sum of N10,000.00 and applied to the Secretary of Local Government, Kaduna to transfer the right of occupancy on the land from him (the allottee) to the respondent. The transfer was effected and the respondent was issued a certificate of occupancy No.037005 on the 27th day of April, 1984. As a result, the respondent caused plans to be drawn for the construction of shops and offices on the land in dispute. The plans were approved by Kaduna Local Government. It was after this that the respondent got the land cleared of bush and paid compensation for the economic trees found thereon. He started with building a wall round the piece of land and followed by a 50 feet long foundation on the land. Later he discovered that the wall which was 324 feet long and the foundation which was 135 feet wide had been demolished by Kaduna Capital Development Board. He had spent not less than N100,000.00 to erect the structures.

Before the hearing in the High Court, pleadings were ordered and exchanged. The 2nd to 5th appellants filed a joint statement of defence while the respondent filed a separate statement of defence and set up a counter-claim against the 1st appellant. The statement of claim filed by the 1st appellant averred in the main the facts narrated above. The respondent denied all the averments therein except as to the building of structures on the land in dispute. He alleged that the 2nd appellant in granting the right of occupancy to the 1st appellant as per certificate of occupancy, exhibit C, did not follow the procedures recognised legally and officially. The grant, he contended in the statement of defence, was therefore "irregular, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever".

At the hearing, the 1st appellant gave evidence on his own behalf. The respondent testified and called two witnesses in support of his case. The 2nd to 5th appellants called the Deputy Surveyor General of Kaduna State as their only witness. The learned trial Judge found for the 1st appellant and granted all the claims which consisted of

Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal which set aside the judgment of the High Court and ordered a retrial before a judge other than the learned trial Judge.

Dissatisfied, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.