The Appellant is the Plaintiff. He is the registered owner of Plot No. 3, Julius Bala Crescent, Legislators Quarters, Jos. The Certificate of Occupancy bears No. BP3785. The Appellant is also the Chairman and Managing Director of Crystal Star Associates and Company Limited.

The plot was mortgaged to the 1st Respondent as collateral for a loan advanced to Crystal Star Associates and Company Limited. Between 1987 and 1990 the 1st Respondent, the mortgagee, made several attempts to realise their security. The first attempt was made between June and July 1987. The property was advertised for public auction because of the default on the part of the Appellant to redeem the mortage.

The 1st Respondent decided to sell the property. Appellant quickly ran to Court to stop the sale. That was in Suit No. PLD/J197/87. The suit was assigned to Soluade, J. It was dismissed for want of diligent prosecution.

On 16th February, 1988 the Appellant filed two motions in Suit No.PLD/J197M2/88. The first one was on notice for an injunction against 1st Respondent from selling the property. The second one was exparte for IB interim injunction against 1st Respondent from selling the property. The two motions came before Uloko, CJ, although the suit pending before Soluade, J, was neither reassigned nor withdrawn. On 23rd February 1988, Uloko, CJ, granted the interim injunction ex parte. He made an order restraining the 1st Respondent from selling the property. The Chief Judge did not give a date for the hearing of the motion on notice. And so, it was a one way affair, the affair of the Appellant as the 1st Respondent was shut out of the litigation. And so was it; badly so.

There seems to be a general agreement on the above facts although there could be infinitesimal areas of disagreement. There is, however, a very loud area of disagreement. Let me state it quickly. It is the case of the Appellant that while the ex parte order of Uloko, CJ. was valid and subsisting, the 1st Respondent sold the property to the 3rd Respondent who in turn resold it to the 2nd Respondent. The 1st Respondent has a different version of the matter. It is this. On 7th March 1988, the motion No.PLD/J197M5/87 was struck out for want of diligent prosecution. Similarly, on 8th March 1988, the Court of Appeal dismissed the motion No.CA/J18M/88 also filed by the Appellant to restrain the 1st Respondent from selling the property pending on a purported appeal filed before the Court of Appeal as same was abandoned. With this development, 1st Respondent sold the property to 3rd Respondent who in turn sold it to the 2nd Respondent on 7th September, 1989 when it appeared that "all the flurry of actions instituted by the Appellant had abated." In other words, the case of the 1st Respondent is that there was no subsisting or pending order when the property was sold. And so they parted ways, materially too.