The case of the Plaintiff at the trial Court was that the Defendant is his tenant occupying his property No. 3 Mission Road, new Murtala Mohammed Road, Benin City. Initially the lease between the parties was for 4 years at the end of which term it was renewed for a term of 25 years. The Plaintiff said he executed this lease by thumb impression with the approval of the Oba of Benin.

The certified true copy of this Deed of lease was in evidence as Exhibit "A". However, in 1970, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant that at the expiration of the then current term of 25 years, the tenancy was to be further extended by 6 years at a yearly rent of £480 but that the rent for the whole of the term of 6 years being £2,880.00 was to be paid to the Plaintiff immediately while the yearly rent for the then current term of 25 years which had 5 years to run, should continue to be paid yearly. Pursuant to this agreement the Plaintiff said he was paid the agreed sum of £2,880.00. Although later on he received some documents from the Defendant pertaining to the new agreement, he did not brother to read them since he had already been paid. In 1977 however, the Plaintiff discovered the existence of Deed of Lease for a term of 93 years purported to have been executed between him and the Defendant in the land registry. The Plaintiff denied executing this document claiming that being an illiterate who could not read nor write in English or any other language, could not have signed the Deed of Lease said to have been executed on 24th August, 1970 and registered in the land registry. The Plaintiff therefore asked the trial Court for a declaration that he was not bound by the Deed of Lease which was in evidence as Exhibits B and F, the document being a nullity.

The Defendant which agreed that it had been dealing with the Plaintiff for over 20 years before the action at the trial Court over its occupation of the Plaintiff's property on Mission Road now Murtala Mohammed Road Benin City, maintained that the parties agreed to the terms of the Supplementary Lease before it was executed by the parties on 24th August, 1970; that the lease was duly signed by the Plaintiff who all along in the course of his dealings with the Defendant over the demised property, held out himself as a literate person particularly having regard to the frequent written correspondence received from the Plaintiff in respect of the Plaintiff's property, which correspondence were duly signed by him. It was the case of the Defendant therefore that the Deed of Lease executed by the parties on 24th August, 1970, is valid and that the Plaintiff was bound by it.

In his judgment, the learned trial Judge found in favour of the Appellant by granting the declaration sought.

The Respondent, dissatisfied with the judgment of the learned trial Judge, appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court.

The Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.