The claim originally was for the sum of N668, 212.67, being balance of the price of steel pipes, roofing nails, plywoods, ceiling boards, and asbestors sheets sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the de¬fendant. According to the plaintiff's pleadings, the contract was made between March and December, 1978 as stated in various proforma invoices and delivery notes dated 31st August 1978, 1st September 1978, 28th September 1978, 19th October 1978,18th December, 1978 and 22nd December 1978. The plaintiff, pur¬suant to the contract, requested its principals, Daewoo Industrial Co. Ltd. in Seoul, Korea, to ship the goods direct to the defendant in Nigeria, which it accordingly shipped as requested. On arrival of the goods between May and September 1979, the original shipping documents were delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant for clearing the goods and which the defendant in fact did. After clearance, the defendant returned only 1,000 cases of roofing nails to the plaintiff which, accord¬ing to the plaintiff, the defendant was unable to sell because of "dull market", but which on the other hand, the defendant alleged did not comply with the sample.

At the time of placing the order, the defendant made a deposit of N45,000 towards the purchase price which, together with the sum of N54,124.00 the cost of the 1,000 cases of roofing nails returned to the plaintiff, amounting to N99,127.00, were credited to the account of the defendant. In other words, a total sum of N99,127.00 was deducted from N713,212.67, the total cost of all the goods, leaving a debit balance of N614.085.00. It was this sum which plaintiff finally claimed from the defendant.

The plaintiff pleaded and led evidence that it unsuccessfully demanded the bal-ance in writing. The receipt of the letter was not denied. The defendant failed to pay or even reply the letter. The defence admitted in the statement of defence that its managing director saw samples of the goods in plaintiff's warehouse before entering into the contract to buy the goods. It was averred that the plaintiff ordered the goods and that the agreement between them was that the goods would be made available at the plaintiff's warehouse on arrival in Nigeria. In accordance with the contract which was oral, the defendant deposited with the plaintiff 80% of the total costs of the goods in two instalments. When the goods arrived, the de¬fendant was invited to the Plaintiff's warehouse to view them and on examination, the defendant there and then rejected them, - on the ground that 'they were not of the quality as the samples."

Having rejected the goods immediately on arrival, the defendant demanded its deposits from the plaintiff and pleaded that "it would be relying on the said letters and replies thereto at the trial of the action." None of these letters or replies was in fact produced at the trial and no oral evidence whatsoever was adduced in sup-port of any of these averments. Further, no counter-claim was made for the re-fund of said deposits.

The defence further averred that the sum of N45,000.00 deposited with the plain¬tiff was in respect of a totally different transaction. Similarly, no evidence was ad¬duced in support of this averment, nor was the nature of that transaction given in evidence. Finally, it denied signing the delivery notes pleaded by the plaintiff in the statement of claim, yet copies of the originals were received in evidence with¬out objection. In its subsequent pleading in reply to that of the plaintiff, defendant mentioned only the 1,000 cases of roofing nails and said nothing about the other goods, which were the principal subject of the claim.

The trial Judge dis¬missed the plaintiffs' claim for failure to prove delivery to and receipt of the goods by the defendants.

Upon appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court.