By a writ of summons issued on 25th October 1989 the Appellant, Plaintiff in the High Court of Kogi State, claimed, among several other declarations, a declaration that he was the rightful person to be appointed the 'Gago of Ukwaka Village'. On 17th July 1995 the High Court (Ochimana, J.,) entered judgment in his favour and declared him the Gago of Ukwaka. The Defendants, Leo Ejiga and Igala Traditional Council, Respondents in this appeal, appealed to the Court of Appeal which, on 3rd December, 1997, allowed their appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and ordered that the case be heard de novo by another Judge of the High Court of Kogi State of the six issues for determination raised before the Court of Appeal, that Court disposed of the appeal on the first of the issues which was as follows:

It did not consider the other issues for determination which touched on the merits of the case.

The facts which gave rise to the only issue can be briefly stated and, in doing so, I draw largely from the judgment of Ejiwummi, J.C.A., (as he then was) who delivered the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal. Before pleadings were filed in the suit in the High Court, the Appellant filed a motion on notice whereby he prayed for orders of interim/interlocutory injunction against the Defendants to restrain them from doing a number of things. There were two affidavits and a counter-affidavit filed in the application. The trial Judge having heard addresses by Counsels for the parties ruled in favour of the Appellant and made orders restraining the Defendants in terms of the orders sought. Pleadings having been filed by the parties, the suit proceeded to trial on the merits, the parties calling witnesses in support of their respective cases. At the conclusion of the trial the trial Judge gave judgment for the Appellant. The Respondents herein appealed to the Court of Appeal contending, among other things, that there has been a miscarriage of justice in that the trial Judge had made pronouncements on the substantive issue in the case in the course of his determination of the application for interlocutory injunction. The Court of Appeal upheld that contention. It held that: