Respondents sued 1st defendant (he was not a party to the appeal and was the husband of 1st respondent/father of 2nd to 9th respondent) and the appellant as the 2nd defendant.

1st respondent, apparently was joint owner of a house with her husband, the 1st defendant who sold the said property to the appellant without the consent of the 1st respondent. The respondent therefore claimed that the said sale should be set aside and declared null and void and an injunction to the restrain the 1st defendant from transferring title in the disputed property to the appellant and also to restrain the appellant from parading himself as the owner of the property.

1st defendant admitted all the allegations of the respondents. Consequently, a motion on notice for the judgment on admission was filed against the 1st defendant. The court granted this application. On his own part the appellant filed a statement of defence in which he denied all the averments of the respondents. He contended that the 1st defendant was a beneficial owner of the property and a holder of a statutory right occupancy over the property in dispute. He therefore claimed that the said also had a counter-claim against the respondents who did not file any defence to the counter-claim.

Following judgment against the 1st defendant due to his admission, the trial court asked counsel for the appellant and respondent to address the court on what was going to be the fate of the appellant in the matter. After hearing counsel's addresses, the court delivered a ruling voiding the sale to the appellant without hearing any evidence on the matter.

The appellant was aggrieved by the ruling of the court nullifying his purchase of disputed property and appealed to the Court of Appeal.