This is an appeal against the judgement of Osu, J., of the Port Harcourt High Court delivered on 22nd March, 1991 where he set aside the judgment of the Port Harcourt zone of the Rent Tribunal and ordered a retrial.

The respondent herein was the plaintiff before the Rent Tribunal, where he instituted three suits, namely, PRT/205/88, PRT/206/88 and PRT/279/88 against the appellants, as defendants. In summary the respondent claimed against each of the appellants:

On the hearing date, the plaintiff was represented by counsel. So were the defendants. The record shows that learned counsel for the defendants pleaded not liable. Thereafter the plaintiff began his testimony as if the case had formally been consolidated. Not only did he give a joint testimony, the record showed that the case was indeed treated as having been consolidated.

At the close of the plaintiff's case the defendants testified in their defence. Thereafter Counsel for both parties addressed the Tribunal. In a reserved judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the plaintiff's claims against the defendants in their entirety. The Tribunal also made consequential orders.

Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff appealed to the High Court of Rivers State.

The High Court allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial. Appellants dissatisfied appealed.