The plaintiff, a limited liability company on 19th April, 1982 entered into a contract with the Vice Chancellor of the University of Jos for the construction of faculties of Environmental Sciences and Education at the permanent site of the University of Jos at a total cost of N28,09 million. It was the Registrar of the University that signed the contract, presumably on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor. The contract contained an arbitration clause in the event of a dispute between the parties to it. The contract was partly executed and some payments made by the University to the plaintiff before a dispute arose between the parties leading to the termination of the contract by the Vice-Chancellor by a letter dated 16th April, 1984. The plaintiff instituted an action at the High Court of Plateau State (Jos Judicial Division) in 1986 against the University of Jos and the council of the University as defendants claiming by its amended statement of claim a total sum of N11,358,000.00. The defendants entered appearance and filed and served an amended statement of defence. At the subsequent trial the plaintiff called witness in support of its case and at the close of the plaintiff's case the defence opened. Whilst the case for the defence was still on, learned counsel for the defendants Mr. Brown-Peterside, SAN filed a motion praying for an order or orders.

This motion was supported by an affidavit and a further affidavit both sworn to by junior counsel in the Chambers of the learned Senior Advocate. At the hearing of the motion, the learned trial Judge took arguments from learned counsel for the parties and in a reserved ruling held that the two defendants were juristic persons and that the action was properly brought against them. He also held that both the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University could properly have been made parties to the action and that the Vice-Chancellor was an agent of the council and a legal person. On the question of incompetence of the action and the jurisdiction to try the matter and that the defendants having taken steps in the matter; the action was competent notwithstanding the arbitration clause in the contract. The first prayer was abandoned at the hearing and was consequently struck out.

Being dissatisfied with the decision, the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal which overturned the High Court's ruling, that the case is incompetent. The appellant was aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Appeal and so it appealed to the Supreme Court.