Respondents' grouse in presenting the suit in this appeal is that Appellant herein allegedly failed and/or neglected to adhere to an "in-principle" agreement reached between a certain Honeywell Group Limited (not a party in the suit of this appeal) and the appellant herein as shown in the letters dated 22nd July, 2013. (compiled at pages 31 and 32 of the record of appeal, Vol.1).

As shown by the letters, respondents herein were indebted to the appellant bank over sums in excess of N5.5 Billion following which Honeywell Group Limited proposed to the appellant bank that the latter grant to it concessions on the total indebtedness. Appellant indeed, gave the concession as sought by Honeywell Group Limited that out of the entire N5.5 Billion outstanding, the negotiating Honeywell Group Limited pay a concessionary sum of N3.5 Billion on terms and conditions mutually agreed at the meeting of 22nd July, 2013.

Further agreed at the 22nd July, 2013 meeting was that the negotiating third party, Honeywell Group Limited pay an immediate sum of N500,000,000.00 whilst the remainder N3 Billion is paid in bullet point form and before the departure of the then visiting CBN examiners at the appellants bank, in August, 2013. It is necessary to add that the then visiting CBN examiners were examining the appellants book on its exposures chief amongst which was the obligations subject of the 22nd July, 2013 "in-principle" agreement.

In a letter dated 22nd July, 2013 the negotiating third party, Honeywell Group Limited proposed fresh terms so as to stagger the repayment of the N3 Billion balance contrary to the agreement earlier reached. The instructive paragraph in the letter by Honeywell Group Limited dated 22nd July, 2013 and compiled at page 31 of the record of appeal Vol.1 reads thus:

"As part of the verbal agreement reached at the meeting, we shall immediately pay the sum of N500 Million towards the facility. We propose that the balance of N3 Billion be paid in three equal half yearly instalments."

It is clear that the payment of N500 Million was as agreed in the meeting of 22nd July, 2013 while the proposed staggered repayments constitute a fresh proposal outside the agreement of 22nd July, 2013.

In confirmation of the above and upon receipt of the fresh proposal, appellant herein immediately caused to be issued; a letter dated same 22nd July, 2013 (page 32 of the record of appeal, Vol.l) rejecting the new proposal and demanding a reversion to the agreement of 22nd July, 2013 in the following words:

"Please note that the agreement was for a full and final payment of N3.5 Billion to be paid immediately by N500 Million on Monday July 22, 2013 and the balance to be paid immediately thereafter before the CBN examiners leave the Bank. Kindly therefore revert in line with the agreement."

There is no record of Honeywell Group Limited’s immediate and/or prompt reaction to the above reproduced assertions.

Also by a letter dated 6th September, 2013 (pages 64-65) of the record of appeal, Vol.1 it was again admitted by the negotiating third party that agreement reached at the meeting of 22nd July, 2013 and for good order's sake was for a bullet payment of N3.5 Billion.

By a letter dated 14th September, 2014 (at page 56 of the record of appeal, Vol.1) the appellant's bank again informed the negotiating third party that the agreement of 22nd July, 2013 became extinct and frustrated in August, 2013 following the palpable breach as contained and proposed in the letter dated 22nd July, 2013. However, that based on its unending proposal that the N3.5 Billion be deemed as full and final settlement of the obligations, appellant's management submitted the fresh proposal to its board of directors and having considered same, the board rejected the offer.

Following the foregoing, respondents herein approached the trial Court seeking the reliefs in the originating processes previously described.

SOUGHT BUT REFUSED EX-PARTE ORDERS ON PUBLICATIONS;

Prior to the presentment of the respondents' suit, the Central Bank of Nigeria had directed all banks in Nigeria, including the appellant herein to publish the names of all debtors in their books, It was the CBN's further directive that any debt, subject of any on-going Court action be excluded in the proposed list/names to be published. Intuitively, respondents' suit, in the eve of the CBNs directed publications, was aimed at stopping any publication of the respondents' names as debtors as then directed by the CBN.

In confirmation of the above, respondents herein upon filing of the suit, sought via an ex-parte application orders to the effect that appellant herein be restrained from publishing their names as a debtor in furtherance of the CBN directive (respondents' motion ex-parte dated 5th August, 2015 is compiled at pages 68-131 of the record of appeal, Vol.1).

The Order of the trial Judge is subject of the committal proceedings now before the Supreme Court in appeal SC.407/2016.

However, following the refusal of their motion ex-parte seeking restriction on advertisement, respondents herein served on the appellant the originating processes including a Motion on Notice for interlocutory injunction. Upon receipt, appellant herein caused to be filed a Notice of preliminary Objection seeking the striking out and/or dismissal of the suit by the Court for want of jurisdiction.

Appellant's objection compiled at pages 138-176 of the record of appeal including its further affidavit and written address at pages 176-188 of the record of appeal, vol.1 were predicated on grounds that the suit in this appeal is over a simple contract which the Lower Court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine.

Further grounds to the objection were that the suit did not show any cause of action against appellant herein in view of the fact that the letter which respondents relied heavily upon (and on which they also sought specific performance) was authored by a third party who is not party to the proceedings. Further arguments canvassed before the trial Court was that the Court at the time of hearing of the preliminary objection could only consider respondents' statement of claim which did not contain any evidence of a banker-customer relationship on which respondents hinged their arguments.

Having heard appellant's preliminary objection and prior to the scheduled ruling, respondents herein caused to be originated an application dated 5th November, 2015 (compiled at pages 199-212 of the record of appeal) seeking as reproduced below:

"AN ORDER of this Honourable Court abridging the time within which this Honourable Court may determine the Defendant/Respondent's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated and filed on 8th September, 2015.

Also asked of the trial Court was an order for accelerated hearing of the suit.

At the resumed hearing before the trial Court on the 11th day of December, 2015 appellant's counsel, informed the learned trial Judge, Idris J of the contempt apparent on the Motion on Notice dated 5th November, 2015. (Record of the trial Court's proceedings is compiled at pages 233-237 of the record of appeal, vol.1).

Following parties' arguments on the contempt apparent on the face of the respondents' process, His Lordship, Idris J, ruled that he indeed, saw the subject Motion seeking for abridgment of time but disregarded same. Subsequent to this, respondents' senior counsel withdrew the contemptuous Motion on Notice following which His Lordship, Idris J, again held as follows:

"The application having been withdrawn this morning, it is hereby dismissed. Counsel should be warned to desist from filing applications that might make it appear as though they owned the Court. The Court belong (sic) to everyone, it belongs to no one. I award N5,000.00 cost in favour of the defendants against the plaintiffs. Matter is adjourned to 14/12/15 for hearing.

(Emphasis supplied at pages 236-237 of the record of appeal, vol.1).

The appellant aggrieved approached the Court of Appeal. The appellant filed 2 (two) Notices of Appeal before the Court of Appeal one challenging the ruling of the trial Court dismissing appellant's notice of preliminary objection dated and filed on the 11th day of December, 2015. (compiled at pages 138-242 of the record of appeal vol.1)

The second Notice of Appeal, dated same 11th December, 2015 was against the trial Courts ruling in respect of respondents' Motion on Notice dated 5th November, 2015 which was contemptuous of the trial Court and which the trial Court discountenanced while adjourning hearing on the contempt proceedings commenced by the respondents against the appellant bank. (pages 243-246 of the record of appeal vol.1).

At the hearing of the appeal, appellant herein withdrew the Notice of Appeal against the trial Court's ruling over respondents' contemptuous Motion on Notice and urged the Court of Appeal to discountenance all arguments canvassed in the appellant's brief of argument in respect of same. (Appellant's brief of argument is compiled at pages 1001-1034 of the record of appeal, vol.4).

The issue submitted in the surviving appeal was whether the trial Court, being a Federal High Court was right to have assumed jurisdiction on a claim predicated on a "simple contract" as apparent in the respondents' statement of claim.

It was further submitted before the Court of Appeal that, should all of appellant's arguments on assumption of jurisdiction over simple contract and absence of cause of action fail, the fact that justice in the suit of this appeal can never be seen to have been done by the trial Court's word for word duplication is enough to set aside such a ruling.

(see para. 3.84 of appellant's reply brief compiled at page 1223 of the record of appeal, vol.4).

The appellant's angst at the Court below is that the learned trial judge had adopted the submissions of respondent's counsel.