The facts surrounding the dispute out of which this appeal arose are simple and straight-forward. The applicable principle of law is however not entirely free from difficulty.

The Respondent had issued a cheque in favour of the Appellant. It was drawn on a bank in the United Kingdom. The cheque was in satisfaction of a debt of £199,711.00. Upon presentation on or about 21-04-93, the cheque was dishonoured. Subsequently and perhaps as a result of a demand for payment by the Appellant, the Respondent reduced his indebtedness by paying £88,000.00. This left outstanding the sum of £111,711.00. The Respondent did not pay the balance. The Appellant then issued a writ of summons under the undefended list procedure at the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division in England. The Writ of Summons, statement of claim and other processes were served by substitution on the Respondent in Nigeria. The Respondent did not enter appearance to the Writ. He did not file a defence either. On 15/06/99, judgment was given against the Respondent for £180,530.00 and costs assessed at £718.00.

In its effort to execute the judgment, the Appellant upon an ex-parte application brought before the High Court. Ibadan (hereinafter referred to as the trial Court') prayed that the judgment obtained in England be registered. Adio J., (as he then was (heard the application and granted it on 22/11/99. In reaction, the Respondent brought an application before the trial Judge that the order registering the judgment be set aside. On 24/2/2000, Adio J., in a ruling refused the prayer that the registration be set aside. In his ruling, he reasoned thus:

"The only argument advanced by the applicant on jurisdiction is that when the Defendant was served outside the jurisdiction of Britain, it is bad. I am not persuaded by that argument, the applicant having admitted service should have gone to the venue to challenge the jurisdiction of that Court. He did not. Judgment was given against him and he wanted it set aside.

Where jurisdiction is in issue, the burden of establishing that the Court has no jurisdiction is upon the party who asserts that the Court has no jurisdiction or vice versa. I have no evidence to prove non-jurisdiction."

The Respondent, dissatisfied with the ruling of the trial Court brought an appeal against it before the Court of Appeal. Ibadan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Court below'). The Court below, in its judgment on 11-06-2002 allowed the appeal. It set aside the order registering the judgment of the English Court.