The parties in this appeal are members of the same Ayanrinola Akayepe family. They were before the High Court of Justice of Oyo State sitting at Ibadan where the Respondent was the Plaintiff while the Appellants were the Defendants. The dispute between the parties was over the allocation to the Respondent by the head of the family of one shop out of five shops built on the family property at Akayepe Compound, Agboni Ibadan which allocation was resisted by the Appellants/Defendants resulting in the Respondent as Plaintiff filing an action against them by a writ of summons claiming in paragraph 28 of his further amended statement of claim, the following reliefs:

The case of the Plaintiffs was heard on their amended statement of claim and the Defendants' original statement of defence after the Defendants' application to also amend their statement of defence was refused by the learned trial Judge. In the course of the hearing of the case, the Plaintiffs called two witnesses in support of their claim while the Defendants in their defence called three witnesses. However, at the conclusion of the evidence in chief of the Plaintiffs' second witness and the cross-examination of the witness by the learned Counsel to the Defendants, the Defendants filed their application for leave of the trial Court to amend their statement of defence. This application was heard and refused by the learned trial Judge before the hearing of the case was concluded. The learned trial Judge in his judgment delivered on 3rd July, 1987, granted the two reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs at pages 245 - 246 of the record of this appeal where the learned trial Judge said:-

"I am convinced from the facts and circumstances I have so far examined, to hold that the Plaintiffs have proved their case on the preponderance of evidence and are therefore entitled to the reliefs they (sic) seek. I am convinced that the said reliefs if granted will have far reaching consequences to make for peace in Rumueme where both parties will remain to enjoy. I therefore enter judgment in favour of the Plaintiff by granting them the reliefs sought as follows:

All the Defendants who were aggrieved by the judgment of the trial High Court, appealed to the Court of Appeal against it. In addition, the Defendants also sought and were granted leave by the Court of Appeal to appeal against the interlocutory ruling of the trial High Court refusing their application to amend their statement of defence. Upon hearing both Defendants' appeals, the Court of Appeal in its judgment delivered on 15th July 1997, dismissed the appeals and affirmed the decision of the trial Court in both its ruling and judgment. Still dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal against them, the Defendants are now on a further and final appeal to this Court.