The facts of the case as shown in the Appellant’s Brief are in the following narrative: The parties to this appeal belong to the Standfast Jack House of Abonnema, popularly called Iju/Jack Group of Houses. According to the Appellants, the Standfast Jack stool is the main or paramount stool in Abonnema. This is because the original Iju/Jack House founded by Iju/Jack himself disintegrated during the tenure of Tubofia, the great ancestor of the respondents. Iju/Jack was a wealthy warrior in Kalabari Kingdom but had no biological child of his own. He therefore adopted many children who manned his war-canoe. After the death of lju/Jack, his brother Oriki succeeded him. After Oriki, Iju/Jack’s adopted son, Tubofia, succeeded him.

The two parties, in this appeal, disagreed over the events, which followed the reign of Tubofia. According to the appellants, the reign of Tubofia was a disaster. All the wealth left behind by Iju/Jack was vandalized and squandered by Tubofia The House became insolvent and Tubofia had to disappear. This led to the disintegration of lju/Jack House. Before the House disintegrated one fugitive Onuoha ran into Iju/Jack House and was given shelter by Tubofia. Onuoha was later integrated into the House. He married one of the daughters of the family and had three issues from the marriage. One of the sons, Ok, later became rich and established his own War-Canoe It was this Oba who established Standfast Jack House, the ancestor of the appellants. It is also the appellants’ case that when lju/Jack House did integrated it was no longer a War-Canoe. When Oba founded anew War-Canoe, Standfast Jack House became the paramount chieftaincy in the Iju/Jack Group of Houses. The others, Tubofia, Boye-Whyte and Kala¬Dokubo became sub-Houses. This dispute which led to this appeal arose when the 6th respondent (now deceased) was installed to sit on the paramount stool of Standfast Jack House.

The respondents’ case is that all the parties in this appeal belong to the Iju/Jack House. Both the appellants and the respondents gave the same history of the lineage of their ancestors up to Iju/Jack the founder of the original chieftaincy. Where they differ is at the stage when Tuboña became the paramount chief. The respondents said that the name “StandfastJack” took its rise from Tubofia, who, during his contact with the European traders was dubbed “Standfast Jack” by the European traders after he told them” I STAND FOR JACK”. This was in reference to the founder of the Iju/Jack Hour.

During the trial both the appellants and the respondents called witnesses and documents were also admitted in evidence. The learned trial judge analyzed all the facts and evidence before him and in a considered judgment found in favour of the appellants, and granted all the declarations sought for in the writ. Dissatisfied with judgment the respondents appealed to the Court of Appeal. The court below reversed the decision of the learned trial judge

They appealed to the Supreme Court.