The respondent granted and the appellant received a loan in the course of the appellant’s banking transactions with the respondent. As security for the loan, the appellant executed a deed of mortgage in favour of the respondent. A clause in the deed of mortgage empowers the respondent to appoint a receiver if any part of the loan on interest is outstanding. In exercise of its power to appoint a receiver under clause 42 of the deed of mortgage, the respondent appointed a receiver and then applied to the Federal High Court by way of ex parte originating summons for the following reliefs:

The trial court refused to hear the application ex parte and ordered the appellant to be put on notice. The appellant was accordingly put on notice. Consequent upon its being put on notice, the appellant filed its answer to the originating summons by way of a counter affidavit.

The trial court found the affidavits in support and in opposition to the summons to be irreconcilably conflicting and ordered the parties to adduce oral testimony to reconcile conflicting facts contained in their respective affidavits. Consequently, the respondent called one witness as against two called by the appellant. After addresses by counsel to parties the trial court granted the respondent all the orders sought in the originating summons.