Respondents based on a petition it received issued directives to the appellant to reconstitute it board of directors.

Appellant then filed a writ of summons and a motion ex parte urging the Federal High Court to restrain respondents from interfering with its AGM until the final determination of the suit. The Federal high Court granted the order sought by the plaintiff/appellant in the motion ex parte.

Aggrieved by the order granted, an appeal was lodged with the Court of Appeal. It was argued that the judge erred by dealing with the plaintiff’s application ex parte when no reason of extreme urgency was shown for not putting the defendant on notice.

The Court of appeal held that the application should not have been made ex parte as there was no real urgency disclosed in the affidavit of urgency.

Dissatisfied with findings of the Court of Appeal an appeal was lodged with the Supreme court.