The plaintiffs/respondents brought an action against the defendant appellant claiming a declaration of title to land under native law and custom, damages for trespass and a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from further acts of trespass. The learned trial judge, after hearing evidence, dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in there entirely

After delivering judgment, the learned trial Judge discovered an error he had made in the judgment then went to visit counsel for the respondent in chambers, to invite him to attend court the following Monday, 12th March when the judgment would be reviewed, and the amended judgment delivered. On the 12th March, the appellant’s counsel appeared. He addressed the court on the question of the learned Judge’s competence to amend his own judgment. Thereafter the learned Judge delivered his amended judgment, in which he amended the errors, but the result was the same as the previous judgment.

The respondents thereupon appealed to the Court appeal. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that the learned trial judge was functus officio when he purportedly delivered the judgment of 12th March 1979, and thus it was null and void. It was also held that since the learned trial Judge admitted making fundamental errors in his judgment, that judgment must also be annulled. A new trial was ordered.

The Appellant, being aggrieved by this decision appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that though the conduct of the trial judge was irregular, it was not so irregular or objectionable as to vitiate the proceedings and judgment of 9th March 1979.