The facts as averred in the statement of claim are that by an agreement in writing made between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and signed on 28th November, 1980 these two parties agreed to exchange their respective properties. The plaintiff agreed to transfer “his title and ownership” in an underdeveloped land situate at Ikoyi, Lagos (“the property”), to the 1st defendant while the 1st defendant also agree to transfer his “title and ownership” over his landed property situation at Sharada, Kano (“the Kano Property”), consisting of four acres, two of which have been developed by the erection thereon of a factory and office building, to the plaintiff.

Pursuant to the agreement, the plaintiff let the 1st defendant into possession of the property and gave consent to the 1st defendant to mortgage the property to the International Bank for West Africa in order to enable the 1st defendant to raise money to develop it. Apparently, the 1st defendant developed the property by building a house on it as it was further averred in the statement of claim that he occupied the house built for number of years before he leased it to the 2nd defendant. It was averred that the 1st defendant “has neglected to and refused” to yield up possession of the Kano property, notwithstanding that the plaintiff had made several demands on him to perform his own side of the bargain and the 1st defendant had always asked for more time to do so. The plaintiff, upon these facts, alleged in paragraph 18 of the statement of claim that the “1st defendant (sic) actions are in bad faith and have completely breached the agreement entered to between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff on the 28th November, 1980 and rendered the agreement null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.”

The defendants filed their respective statements of defence. The 2nd defendant sub-joined to his own defence a counter-claim which the plaintiff answered by filling a reply to defence and counter-claim. Although not pertinent to the issues on this appeal, by the counter-claim 2nd defendant sought a declaration of the High Court that he was entitled to be registered as owner of the property or, in the alternative, that the plaintiff be ordered to execute an assignment in his favour.

At the close of pleadings, the defendant applied to the High Court for an order dismissing the suit on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and that the reliefs sought by the plaintiff were “unobtainable in law”. Akinsanya, J., before whom the matter came, granted the application and dismissed the action on March 11, 1994. She was of the view that if breach of contract is alleged, nullification of the contract as claimed by the plaintiff by his relief (c) above, was not the appropriate relief to sought. She regarded the other reliefs sought by the plaintiff, particularly the declaratory and injunctive reliefs, as “auxiliary reliefs” which, to my mind, is an apt way of describing a relief which merely supports the principal relief and cannot stand if the principal relief fails. In this case, she regarded relief (c) as the main relief and the others as merely supporting that relief and consequential to the grant of the main relief. She further held that, in any event, the action was statue-barred.

On the plaintiff’s appeal to the Court of Appeal from the decision of the High Court, the two issues raised were whether the statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether the action was statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of plaintiff to the extent only that the learned judge was wrong in holding that as regards reliefs (a) and (b) the statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and that the action was statute-barred. In regard to the other reliefs sought the appeal was dismissed.

Being dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeal, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.