Applicants/Appellants took out an originating summons dated 3rd February, 2003 claiming against the 1st-4th Respondents a declaration that the record of proceedings of the Bwari Upper Area Court dated 18/8/95 in Case No. CR 81-95 was presumed genuine and sufficient in law for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents to rely on in opposing the candidature of Chief James Onanefe Ibori who was then the gubernatorial candidate of the 3rd Respondent in Delta State.

Applicants claimed that by virtue of the conviction and sentence in Case No. CR81-95, Ibori was not qualified to be a candidate in the 2003 elections

They sought an order of the Court to compel the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents to disqualify Ibori. Applicants further asked the Court to restrain the 4th Defendant from recognising and accepting the candidature of Ibori for the 2003 Gubernatorial Elections in Delta State.

Counsel to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed a memorandum of appearance and a counter affidavit in response to the summons, but he did not appear on the date fixed for hearing.

The matter was adjourned for ruling later on the same date. That ruling could not be delivered as Ibori's counsel brought an application asking that he be joined in the action as 5th Respondent.

A preliminary objection was raised to the originating summons upon the grounds (a) that the Appellants had no locus standi to institute the action and (b) that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear it.

The trial Court granted the joinder application and struck out the preliminary objection.

The learned trial Judge admitted the proceedings of the Upper Area Court, Bwari, which convicted one James Onanefe Ibori, as Exhibit A. He ruled that the applicants had no basis at all.

Dissatisfied, Applicants/Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal and set aside the ruling of the lower court. The Court of Appeal ordered that the case be heard de novo by another Judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja to determine the identity of the person convicted.

Dissatisfied, the 5th Respondent and Appellants appealed and cross appealed respectively to the Supreme Court.