From their pleadings and evidence, the appellants, both of whom were legal practitioners, are the children of late Benjamin Odiakosa Anyaduba who they claim owned the piece of land known as 11, New Market Road, Onitsha, and which is situate at the junction of Nottidge and New Market Roads, Onitsha. On or about 12/3/32 their father granted a kola-tenancy “for her life only” of the land in dispute to one Madam Christiana Ibioda for which she paid the sum of N120. A receipt was issued by the landlord and witnessed by one Isaac (now Chief) A. Mbanefo (then of the United Africa Company and presently the Odu of Onitsha) in respect of that transaction. A photo-copy of and the original document were later tendered in evidence as Exhibits A and A1 respectively. “On or about” 1938 Mr. B O Anyaduba died.

On or about” the year 1954 Madam Ibiola, allegedly in breach of her kola tenancy, “surreptitiously” leased the property in dispute to Messrs Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. When the plaintiffs threatened her with forfeiture of the land, she apologized and begged to be allowed to remain in possession of the land “for the period of her life”. Which plea was accepted by the plaintiffs. Again in 1957 she was further reprimanded “about the lease” (the reason for this is not stated) but she again pleaded for respite, undertaking that the property will revert to the children of late B.O. Anyaduba on the expiration of her current lease to Messrs. Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. “On or about” the year 1968, during the Nigerian Civil War, Madam Ibiola died childless. When the lease expired on 31/12/76, the Bata Shoe Co. Ltd gave up possession of the land to the family of late B.O. Anyaduba. The plaintiffs reentered the land, took possession thereof and obtained an approved plan in 1977 for a building thereon. At this stage the defendant company also submitted a plan for building on the land, which was refused. Claiming ownership of the land as successors in title to Madam Ibiola, they heaped moulded blocks on the land. Thereupon the plaintiffs took the present action against them. Soon after, on 28/3/78, the 1st plaintiff died.

The defendant, on the other hand, claims that the late B.O. Anyaduba transferred all his interest in the land in dispute to Madam Ibiola (who was also known as Madam Christiana Ibiolanigbe Oyekanmi) through Exhibit A1 under the kola tenancy land tenure of Onitsha for which she paid N120:00. By virtue of that transaction, she became the kola tenant of the Mgbelekeke family whose kola tenant late B.O. Anyaduba was. She was so recognized by that family. Between 22/8/47 and 19/5/54 Madam Ibiola executed 3 leases of the land in dispute to Bata Shoe Company, details of what are set out in their pleadings, and tendered in evidence, without any let or hindrance from anybody. She made a will dated 16/7/55 and died, not on or about 1968 as averred by the plaintiffs but, on or about the 2nd September, 1957 before the Nigerian Civil war. Probate of her Last Will and Testament was granted to her Executors by the High Court of Eastern Nigeria and subsequently Letters of Administration of her estate were granted to her relations (applicants). It was these administrators who in July 1977, to the knowledge and with the prior consent of their kola landlord, the Mgbelekeke family, leased the land in dispute to the Defendant Company. Plaintiffs subsequent interference with the user of the land after defendant had taken possession, led to the present action.

The trial High Court refused to grant declaration of title to the land in dispute because, in its view, title was not issue between the parties. Because it would work hardship on the plaintiffs it non-suited them on that claim, instead of dismissing same.

The trial Judge also refused to grant the appellants any damages for trespass and the injunction sought. It however awarded the appellants N500.00 costs for having partially succeeded.

Dissatisfied, the respondents appealed against the parts of the judgment of the High Court. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent’s appeal, and dismissed the appellant’s claim in the High Court and set aside the whole judgment of the High Court and the order as to costs.

Both parties were dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal and they appealed to the Supreme Court.