The controversy that led to the above claims against the 2nd Respondent, a chartered accountant and the 1st Appellant bank is the appointment of the 2nd Appellant by 1st Appellant as a receiver, and the sale of the Respondent's plants and machinery. The Plaintiff/Respondent manufactures, bottles, distributes and sells soft drinks and beverages. The Plaintiff obtained a loan from the 2nd Defendant for the purchase of plants and machinery for use for production of the aforementioned drinks. A mortgage agreement was entered, and the loan was added to me Plaintiff's other resources to acquire the needed plants. After the acquisitions the Plaintiff could not commence production due to lack of funds, and the 2nd Defendant refused the Plaintiff's application for working capital, and advised him to look elsewhere, and in the process of looking the 2nd Defendant appointed the 1st Defendant as receiver, without the Plaintiff's consent vide a letter dated 23rd September 1988, which contained instruction for the management of the Plaintiff's affairs, and not to sell the Plaintiff's plants and machinery. Rather than manage the business of the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant took steps to wind up the company by unlawfully selling the plants and machinery, and terminating the appointment of the staffs and exposing the factory to various losses. As a result of the losses the Plaintiff claimed the supra reproduced damages.

The 1st and 2nd Defendants denied most of the above allegations. According to the Defendants the mortgage agreement entered into by the parties contained the term that the 2nd Defendant may appoint a receiver over the premises any time the loan became due. Consequent upon the failure to pay installments that were due, the 2nd Defendant appointed the 1st Defendant as a receiver, and he took the steps of selling the Plaintiffs plants and, machinery, as that was the only way the 2nd Defendant could realize the debt.

After pleadings had been exchanged to wit a reply to the statement of defence was also filed, the Plaintiff adduced evidence, and learned counsel to both sides addressed the Court. Learned trial Judge considered and appraised all that was before him and found for the Plaintiff

Dissatisfied with the decision, the Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the award of general damages, but confirming the award of special damages made by the trial Court. Still dissatisfied, the Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.