Appellants (as plaintiffs) and respondents (as defendants) instituted two cross-actions seeking title to the land in dispute, forfeiture of customary tenancy, order for permission to redeem the said land, together with consequential orders for recovery of possession as well as perpetual injunction. The two suits were consolidated for purposes of the trial.

At trial, the respondents counsel sought to cross-examine the appellants which showed the boundary as the same as those shown on the respondents' plan. An objection was raised thereto by the appellants' counsel which objection was sustained by the trial court. It held that the previous plans were not admissible in evidence at all since they had been amended by the appellants. The trial court also went further to expunge evidence already given by the said surveyor in relation to said survey plans.

The trial court entered judgment in favour of the appellants.

Respondents dissatisfied, appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal holding that the trial court ought to have admitted the previous survey plans in evidence. It then ordered a re-trial.

Appellants also dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal and appealed to the Supreme Court. The respondents on the other hand cross-appealed on the order of re-trial made by the Court of Appeal.