The Plaintiff/Appellant is a limited liability company engaged in the business of stock broking and finance. The 1st Defendant/Respondent is also a limited liability company in the financial sector, while the 2nd Defendant/Respondent is a creditor of the 1st Defendant. In the High Court of Lagos State, the Plaintiff instituted an action against the Defendants jointly and severally for willful and wrongful detention of a new 60KVA Soundproof Perkins generating set purchased for the sum of N516,757.00. The Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant had entered into a finance lease agreement for the sum of N2,700,000.00, which was disbursed to the 1st Defendant for the purchase of various equipment, including the said generating set. The 1st Defendant defaulted in paying its monthly installments, and the Plaintiff continued to demand payment. As at 15/5/94 the 1st Defendant was owing the sum of N611,289.78. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff had to provide for the debt owed it by the 1st Defendant in accordance with the Prudential Guidelines for Banks issued by the regulatory authorities and this affected the Plaintiffs cash flow. Consequently, in order to mitigate its losses, the Plaintiff terminated the lease agreement vide a letter which demanded the return of all the equipment under the lease. The equipment were all returned with the exception of the generating set, which they both arranged should be sold by Inland Bank Nigeria Limited at Onitsha for the sum of N650,000.00. The 2nd Defendant, knowing fully well that the ownership of the Equipment did not reside in the 1st Defendant, went to Onitsha in the company of some armed men and forcibly removed the equipment from the premises of the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff, as owners of the equipment, claimed against the 2nd Defendant the sum of N200,000.00 as general damages for willful and wrongful detention of its equipment and the sum of N15,000.00 monthly (from 4 October, 1994, till the judgment debt is finally liquidated) as damages for the consequent loss of profit. In the alternative, the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendants, jointly and severally, the sum of N938,479.50 being the value of the generating set and its accessories plus interest thereon at the banks' current prime lending rate from time to time till total liquidation of the debt. It also claimed the sum of N50,000.00, being solicitors' fees for recovery of all the arrears of rent and repossession of the equipment from the Defendant and, as general damages, the sum of N300,000.00.

After the service of the Plaintiff's statement of claim on the Defendants, the 2nd Defendant filed a notice of preliminary objection in which he contended that the action, in so far as it affected him, was incompetent in that the subject matter of the suit was not situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Lagos State and the alleged seizure took place outside the jurisdiction of the Court. He argued that since all the claims in the Plaintiffs action against the 2nd Defendant related to and arose from an alleged distrain or seizure of the generating set (a personal property) the action ought to have been commenced and determined in the Onitsha Judicial (territorial) Division where the property was alleged to be situated.

The Plaintiff filed a reply to the above objection, asserting that all the parties were residing within jurisdiction of the Lagos High Court and that the distrain to Plaintiffs property also took place within jurisdiction. He argued submitted further that the contract between Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant was performed in Lagos.

The learned trial Judge, after considering the parties' addresses, dismissed the objection and held that the Court had jurisdiction to try the case. Aggrieved by the ruling the 2nd Defendant/Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which held that Lagos State High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Plaintiff/Appellant consequently appealed to the Supreme Court.