This case arose because, as alleged by the respondent and found by the trial judge, the appellants, sometime in 1982, entered into land which had always been a the possession of the respondent from the time, sometime in 1964, when he purchased it from the original owners, the Ikolaba family, up to the time of the entry hereon by the appellants. For the declaration of a statutory right of occupancy, which he claimed, the respondent relied on a grant to him by the Governor of Oyo state of that right sometime in 1980, and witnessed by a Certificate of Occupancy dated 13th November 1980. The respondent's case was that prior to the grant of statutory right of occupancy the land was vested in him by virtue of a purchase of the land from the Ikolaba family through their representatives who were given a power of attorney dated 17th January 1964. By a deed of conveyance dated 3rd of July, 1964 the attorneys, acting pursuant to the power of attorney and on behalf of the Ikolaba family, conveyed the land to the respondent.

The appellants, who are members of the Ikolaba family, also counter claimed for similar relief as the respondent. They claimed to have acquired a prior title to the land by virtue of individual grants made to them sometime in 1954 by the Ikolaba family. They alleged that they have been in continuous possession of the land from the time of their several grants. The butt of the appellants' case at the trial, both in regard to their defence and to their counter-claim, was that the power of attorney relied on by the respondent was a 'fake' and was not valid.

At the trial, understandably, the issues that came to the fore were: first, whether the person who conveyed the land to the respondent held a valid power of attorney from the Ikolaba family; Secondly, whether the respondent was in possession of the land as claimed by him; and, thirdly, whether the appellants had any grants of the land as claimed by them.

At the end of the trial, the trial court found in favour of the respondents and dismissed the counter-claim of the appellants. On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the court struck out grounds 2, 6 and 10 of the appellants' grounds of appeal holding that they were incompetent.

The appellant's being dissatisfied appealed to the Supreme Court.