The facts which gave rise to the plaintiff's action were not much in dispute. The plaintiff, a businessman who was appointed a sole distributor of a biscuit manufacturing company was a customer of the defendant who were at all material times bankers carrying on business of banking throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria. At all materials times the defendant had of its branches in Warri at No. 8 Warri/Sapele Road, of EPACO (Nigeria) Marketing Company.

At the request of the plaintiff, the defendant sometime in April, 1986, issued a bank draft in favour of the manufacturer payable at the defendant's branch in Surulere. Upon presentation of the draft by the manufacturers for payment it was returned unpaid, endorsed "1st signature irregular". Claiming that these words endorsed on the draft were defamatory of him and that the draft was negligently issued, the plaintiff claimed damages.

The trial court merely rehearsing the evidence in the case and arguments of counsel came to the conclusions: In regard to the claim for libel, that from the evidence the claim for libel had not been proved; and, in regard to the claim for negligence, that the plaintiff's case against the defendant for negligence had not been proved.

Beyond stating that on the evidence the claim for libel has not been proved, the learned judge did not proffer any detailed reasons in law why the claim for libel should be dismissed. However, in regard to the claim for negligence his reasons for dismissing the action, put in a nutshell, were that the defendant was "the Union Bank of Nigeria Limited (Warri Branch)" and not "the Union bank Nigeria Limited (Surulere Branch) nor the Union Bank Nigeria Limited." The learned judge reasoned thus:

Having so reasoned he reverted to his earlier finding that:

and dismissed the claim.

Dissatisfied with the decision of the trial court, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. The latter court affirmed the decision of the trial court. In doing so, it raised suo motu the issue of whether Union Bank Nigeria Limited (Warri Branch) was a juristic person and resolved it against the appellant. Parties were not invited to address the court on the issue. The Court of Appeal came to the conclusion that Union Bank of Nigeria Limited (Warri branch) was not a juristic person.

Aggrieved by the judgement of the Court of Appeal, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.