On or about the 26th day of October, 1983, a cheque leaf No. 066058 for the sum of N885,000.00 deposited with the 2nd respondent was received at the Branch of the 1st respondent at Agodi Ibadan. The cheque which was drawn on the 1st respondent was purportedly issued by Messrs. Robatek Nigeria Limited - an industrial company with headquarters at Lagos, in favour of the appellant. On 27th October, 1993, the 1st respondent in attempt to balance its accounts for the previous day, discovered that the cheque was missing. This was at the close of the day. Consequently, the account for that day could not be balanced. On the following day, that is 28th October, 1983, a thorough se arch was made at the Branch and it was found that the amount of N885,000.00, which could not be accounted for, was represented by the missing cheque issued by C Messrs. Robatek Nigeria Limited. When by 11.00 a.m. on that day it became clear that the cheque could not be traced, the Manager of the Branch contacted the Main Branch in Ibadan of the 1st respondent which is situate at Bank Road, Ibadan, in order to find out who it was that presented the cheque to the latter Branch. The Manager was informed that the cheque was lodged by the 2nd respondent and he immediately got in touch on telephone with the Manager of the 2nd respondent in Ibadan. The former requested the latter not to honour the cheque on the ground that it had been lost. But to his surprise, the Manager of the 2nd respondent stated that the cheque had already been honoured, the account of the appellant having been credited and that two cheques issued by the appellant for the sums of N 150,000.00 and N75.000.00 had been paid out from the account to the appellant and his wife respectively. The payments were said to have taken place after the representative of the 2nd respondent, returned from a session of the Central Bank of Nigeria Clearing House which took place earlier in the morning of that day.

The 1st respondent felt that the 2nd respondent was wrong in honouring the cheque because the stipulated period before payment on the cheque could be made was four working days. The 2nd respondent countered by contending that Banking Regulations required four clearing sessions of the Central Bank Clearing House to be held before the payment could be effected and that it acted accordingly. Hence the institution of the action by the 1st respondent against the appellant and the 2nd respondent jointly.

The learned trial judge refused the first relief in the 1st respondent's claim but granted the remaining reliefs.

Both the appellant and the 2nd respondent were dissatisfied and appealed to the Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial but excluded the 2nd respondent from the retrial it ordered.

Appellant dissatisfied, appealed to the Supreme Court.