This is an appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Lagos Division, which struck out the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants. The plaintiffs' claim against the defendant at the trial court are as follows, as per the statement of claim:-

Pleadings were exchanged by the parties; to wit there was amendment, and a reply to the amended statement of defence. Briefly put the plaintiffs leased a 250 KVA Roll Royce Power generating set to the defendant on 5th of June 1998 for an agreed fee of N200, 000.00 for an initial period of 30 days. The term of the lease was signed on 6th of June, and the defendants technicians tested it before it was removed to the site of a third party, Bristow Helicopters Ltd. On 18th June, 1998, the defendant wrote a letter to the plaintiffs repudiating the lease, and in fact stopped the cheque issued to the plaintiffs. The defendant refused to return the generator to the plaintiffs' yard despite repeated demand.

The defendant denied most of the plaintiffs' allegations stating that it stopped the cheques it issued to the 1st plaintiff because its client, a third party found the generator to be unserviceable and useless. The third party, Bristow Helicopters Limited complained that the generator failed to work, and the 1st plaintiff was informed of the malfunctioning. In spite of some changes in some parts of the generator, there were still problems, hence the defendant repudiated the contract on 15th of June, 1998. The defendant stated that before it repudiated the agreement, a 500 KVA generator was moved to its client's site by Tate Industries to avoid further embarrassment the 1st plaintiff have caused it. The defendant denied that it was obliged to return the plaintiffs' unserviceable generating set to its site having incurred financial loss as a result of the defaulting generating set hired. The defendant therefore counter-claimed as follows against the plaintiffs:-

Parties adduced evidence, and the learned trial judge after evaluating same entered judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, but not in the sums claimed, but with certain variations under each head of damages claimed. The defendant was not satisfied with the judgment, so it appealed to the Court of Appeal, which allowed the appeal, and found thus:-

"The trial court has no competence to entertain the suit for want of competent plaintiff. The appeal being meritorious is allowed. The judgment of the court below is set aside and the plaintiffs suit is hereby struck out with N5, 000.00 costs to the appellant."

The plaintiffs have now appealed to this court