By an application for summons dated the 21st day of March, 1997, the Respondent as Plaintiff, claimed against the Appellants who were Defendants before Abdullahi Mustapha, J. of the Federal High Court sitting in Kano, as follows:

The background facts leading to the filing of this appeal may be briefly stated as follows:

By a motion ex-parte dated 21st March, 1997, the Respondents asked for and were granted an order for interim injunction restraining the Appellants from removing the aircraft out of the Mallam Aminu Kano International Airport, Kano. On the 25th of March, 1997, the Respondent got leave to issue and serve the Writ of Summons and other processes on the Appellants outside the jurisdiction of the Court substituted means. Four days after the order of interim injunction was obtained, the Respondent also on the same 25th March, 1997, brought a motion on notice for an order of interlocutory injunction. Upon the service of these processes on the Appellants, they appeared by counsel and objected to the action on grounds of want of jurisdiction on the premise that the contract, subject matter of the suit, was entered into the United Kingdom and to be performed in Equitorial Guinea and all the Appellants were resident outside the jurisdiction of the Court. The Appellants also prayed the Court below to strike out the names of the 2nd and 3rd Appellants from the suit as they were not privy to the contract which forms the subject matter of the Suit and in the alternative to the 1st two prayers, an order setting aside or discharging the order of interim injunction. Arguments were proffered on the application a foresaid and a ruling thereon was delivered on 14th of April, 1997 wherein the learned trial Judge dismissed the objection to jurisdiction and all the other prayers of the Appellants’ motion and preliminary objection dated the 4th of April, 1997 praying that the aircraft be released upon provision of adequate security by the Appellants.

The learned trial Judge thereupon ordered the release of the aforesaid aircraft upon payment by the Appellants of US$100,000,00.to the registrar of the Federal High Court, Kano who would use the same to open an interest yielding account with the Union Bank, Kano in trust for the parties and an inspection of the air craft by officials of the Civil Aviation Authority of the United Kingdom, failing which officials of the Civil Aviation Authority of Nigeria were to conduct the inspection.

Subsequent to the ruling, the Respondent brought a motion ex-parte dated the 30th of April, 1997 to vary the order of the learned trial Judge for the deposit of US$100,000.00 paid into Court to be converted to its Naira equivalent to be used by the Registrar of the Court to open an interest yielding account with the Union Bank of Nigeria PLC in trust for the eventual winner.

The said motion ex-parte having been moved and granted as prayed in the Respondent’s favour, the Appellants moved their own motion on notice dated 2nd of June,1997 praying the Court to set aside the Order of 30th April,1997 converting the security into its Naira equivalent. This motion was moved but the same was dismissed in a ruling of the Court dated 17th June, 1997.

Being dissatisfied with the ruling of the 14th April,1997 and that of 17th June,1997, the Appellants brought three (3) appeals before the Court of Appeal sitting in Kaduna (hereinafter in the rest of this judgment referred to as (“the Court below.”) Appeal number one is against the decision made by the trial court on a motion ex-parte dated 14th April, 1997. Appeal number two on the other hand, is against the ruling of the same trial court on 21st March, 1997.

At the hearing of the appeal before the Court at which briefs were filed and exchanged, the Appellants abandoned the second appeal while what was left for it to consider was the judgement on jurisdiction and conversion of the security into Naira.

In its judgement dated the 18th of January, 2000, the Court below (per Omage J.C.A. and concurred in by Ayo Salami and Mahmud Mohammed, JJ.C.A.) held in respect of appeal number one thus:

“The order being an interlocutory one made by the Court is not the proper occasion when evidence can be tendered in order to determine jurisdiction or lack of it. In the result the appeal fails. It is dismissed.”

In respect of Appeal No.3 the court below concluded its judgment by holding as follows:

“For the said sum of $100,000 dollars remain the property of the Appellants until final judgment in the suit is delivered. The order of the Federal High Court other than the Honourable Justice Abdullahi Mustapha. The appeal No 3 succeeds. There will be no order as to cost.”

The Appellants being dissatisfied with the first part of the judgment of the court below appealed to this Court premised on the two grounds contained in a Notice of Appeal dated 30th September, 1998