The defendant was a pastor in the plaintiffs’ church (Christ Apostolic Church of Nigeria). He was also the Assistant-General Superintendent of the said church based in Enugu. He was ordained a pastor of the church in 1962. In his position as Assistant General Superintendent, he supervised all the church in the then Anambra and Imo States and occupied the property of the church at No. 92, Agbani Road, Enugu as his parsonage. As the Assistant General Superintendent of the plaintiffs’ church, he had custody and possession of the church properties documents of title, files and record books. Following his refusal to go on transfer to Kano he was dismissed by the plaintiffs with effect from 30th November, 1979 by a letter Exhibit “G”. He also refused to vacate the parsonage at No. 92, Agbani Street, Enugu until he was evicted through court process. He established his own church Christ Ascension Church thereafter with branches in the former Anambra and Imo States. Subsequently, the plaintiffs instituted the action giving rise to the present appeal and claimed the reliefs set out above. The defendant denied being an employee of the plaintiffs and in possession of any of the properties of the plaintiffs. It was also his contention all along that he is not an accounting party.

It was submitted in the defendant appellant’s brief that it is not enough in a case for account for the plaintiffs’ pleadings to allege merely that the defendant is an accounting party, that the pleadings must also allege that the defendant had been asked to render an account and that he defaulted. It was further submitted that the two ingredients must be shown in the plaintiffs’ pleading and proved before the court can order the defendant to render any account. The court was referred to paragraphs 17 and 18 of the further amended statement of claim, the evidence of P. W. 1 (Nelson Eku Udofia – the General Secretary of Christ Apostolic Church) P. W. 2 (Pastor Osita Collins Chukwuezie – Area Secretary), P. W. 3 (Abraham Onasanya Adebanjo Olutimehin – General Superintendent), P. W. 7 (Charles Okafor – a supervisor at the A.C.B. Ltd. Uwani branch, Enugu and D. W. 1 (Pastor Samuel Orji – Area Treasurer). We were also referred to Bullen and Leake and Jacobs precedents of pleadings. 12th edition at page 183 under the heading – Account, Levy v. Goldhill (1917) 2 Ch. 297 and Cramb v. Goodwin (1919) 35 T.L.R. 447. It was further submitted that the claim must show that the defendant failed in his duty in that he has not rendered proper accounts and that in this case no allegation was made in the pleadings that any account was demanded and that the defendant defaulted or neglected to render the same. We were again referred to the evidence of P. W. 1 where he testified that the plaintiffs did not write to the defendant for a settlement of account from 1962 to 1979 because there was no cause for that.

It was also submitted that the plaintiffs having led the defendant for eighteen years to believe that there was no cause for them to demand settlement of account, they cannot now be heard to demand it from the defendant because they had waived it.

It was submitted in the plaintiffs/respondents’ brief that the plaintiffs’ pleading was sufficient. The court was referred to paragraphs 8,9,17 and 18 of the further amended statement of claim. It was submitted in the plaintiffs/respondents’ brief that the averment in paragraphs 8, 9, 17, and 18 of the further amended statement of claim. It was submitted in the plaintiffs/respondents’ brief that the averment in paragraphs 8, 9, 17 and 18 of the further amended statement of claim to the effect that the defendant was dismissed in 1979 and he refused to hand over the properties of the plaintiffs in his custody implied that there was a demand for account and the failure of the plaintiffs to give an account for eighteen years did not rely on Waiver as a defence in the court below, he cannot raise it here without the leave of this court. The case Burdick v. Garrick (1870) L.R.5CH. APP. 233 AT 243 was cited and relied upon.

This appeal revolves on the broad question of whether the defendant was an accounting party and if so whether he rendered the accounts at the two named banks. There is a subsidiary issue of the constitution of the suit.