The rights of the Plaintiffs to the property in dispute originated from a lease dated 27/1 /1918 signed by the then Governor General of Nigeria, between the Government of Nigeria and the Elder Dempster and Company Limited, by which the property known as plots A-F Block 77 in Port Harcourt Township Layout was leased out by the Nigerian Government to the Elder Dempster and Company Limited for a term of 75 years commencing from 27th day of January, 1918. On 10/6/1936, the Elder Dempster and Company Limited assigned the same property to E.D Realization Company Limited for all the residue of the term of years then unexpired and the same was duly registered. Again on 25/1/1940, E.D. Realization Company Limited assigned the same property to the Church Missionary Trust Association Limited for all the residue of the term of years then unexpired and the same was duly registered in the Land registry. Later, on 28/1/1965, by another Deed of Assignment, the Church Missionary Trust Association Limited assigned the same property to the Plaintiffs now Appellants, C.S.S. Bookshops Limited for all the residue of the terms of years then unexpired and the same right was duly registered. In the same year 1965 when the lease was assigned to the Plaintiffs, the leasehold had an unexpired term of 28 years and there was a building standing on the property used for residential purposes by the staff of the Plaintiffs. However the building was destroyed during the civil war in the area between 1967 and 1970. The Plaintiffs however continued to enjoy this leasehold interest on the property in dispute from 1965 up to 29/3/1978 when the Land Use Act came into operation. The Plaintiffs continued to enjoy the interest in the property in dispute which devolved to it with the commencement of the Land Use Act until 27/4/1985, when by a notice published in the Rivers State Government Gazette No. 27 volume 17, the Military Governor of Rivers State of Nigeria the 2nd Defendant, purported to have revoked the right of occupancy of the Plaintiffs in the property in dispute without affording the Plaintiffs the opportunity of being heard. Subsequently the same property in dispute was granted to the 1st Defendant by the 2nd Defendant under a certificate of occupancy in exercise of powers under the Land Use Act. Aggrieved by the action of the 1st Defendant in revoking their right of occupancy, the Plaintiffs filed this action at the trial Port Harcourt High Court of Justice challenging the alleged revocation on the grounds among others that the revocation was illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever and did not extinguish the right of occupancy of the Plaintiffs as the 1st Defendant's action in the revocation was contrary to provisions of the constitution and the Land Use Act.

The 1st Defendant on its part asserted that the action of the 2nd Defendant in revoking the Plaintiffs' right of occupancy was quite in order under the Law and so also was the grant of the same party in dispute to it by the 2nd Defendant taking into consideration the fact that the 1st Defendant had been using the property in dispute for special prayers for many years. The 1st Defendant therefore merely regarded the action of the 2nd Defendant in issuing a certificate of occupancy dated 27/4/1985 in respect of the Land in dispute to it, as only confirming the right of the 1st Defendant over the property in dispute which it had been using before the coming into force of the Land Use Act in 1978.

The trial Court came to the conclusion that the Appellants had succeeded in proving their case against the Respondents particularly the 2nd - 4th Respondent who offered no defence to the action, and granted all the reliefs claimed by the Appellants.

Dissatisfied, the 1st Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the 1st Respondent appeal, set aside the Judgment of the trial High Court and dismissed all the Appellant's claims.

Dissatisfied with the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.