The Respondent to this appeal is an incorporated company with its head office at No. 9 Bedwell Street, Calabar. The 1st Appellant is also an incorporated company with its head office at No. 1 Trans Amadi Layout, Port Harcourt. The 2nd Appellant is its managing director.

From the Statement of Claim filed by the Respondent and evidence given thereon, it would appear that on or about the 26th of October 1994, the parties agreed that the Appellants would convey teak wood on behalf of the Respondent from Eboko for delivery to Calabar wharf. The agreement to this effect was entered into in Calabar. It was also a term of the agreement that the teak wood would be delivered in ten trips and at a cost of N275,000.00; the Respondent claimed that he paid to the Appellants the sum of N270,000.00 with a Union Bank cheque and also N5,000.00 complete the cost of the transaction. The agreement was admitted in evidence as Exhibit 2. Also admitted in evidence is the LPO- Exhibit 3 which was given to the Respondent, and which led to the formation of the agreement with the Appellants. The Respondent also stated that in order to effect due performance of the contract, he hired a pay loader to assist in the loading of the teak wood into the Appellants' lorry. The pay loader was hired for 5 days at the cost of N180,000,00, A receipt. Exhibit 4 was issued for that payment. Respondent claimed that it was agreed between the parties that the pay loader should be ready to load on the 2nd November 1994. The pay loader duly arrived at Eboko, but the Respondents' lorry to carry the teak wood was not there, and for five days for which the pay loader was hired, the transporter, namely the Appellants' lorry, did not show up at Eboko to effect the transportation of the teak wood.

The Respondent then claim that the Appellants failed to carry the teak wood as agreed. And inspite of the several demands made for the return of the money paid to the Appellants, and the incidental expenses incurred by the Respondent for the proper execution of the contract, the Appellants have refused or neglected to pay back the said money. Hence he commenced this action, and claimed as pleaded in the Statement of Claim. And as I have already stated above, the claims of the Respondent were upheld by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Court below.

The Respondent then claim that the Appellants failed to carry the teak wood as agreed. And inspite of the several demands made for the return of the money paid to the Appellants, and the incidental expenses incurred by the Respondent for the proper execution of the contract, the Appellants have refused or neglected to pay back the said money. Hence he commenced this action, and claimed as pleaded in the Statement of Claim. And as I have already stated above, the claims of the Respondent were upheld by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Court below.