Two suits were instituted in the Federal High Court, Calabar on June 1, 1998 by two separate sets of Plaintiffs against the same Defendants. The said Defendants are now the Appellants. The first suit No. FHC/CA/CS/30/98 claimed special damages of N3,698,524,656.00 and general damages of N301,475,344.00. The Plaintiffs therein are now the 1st set of Respondents. The second suit No. FHC/CA/CS/31/98 claimed special damages of N938,200,464.00 and general damages of N61,799,536.00. The Plaintiffs in that suit are now the 2nd set of Respondents. The Defendants in the two suits were sued jointly and severally. The two suits have as their cause of action ecological and environmental pollution arising from crude oil spillage.

In both suits, the statements of claim were filed on 22 July, 1998 and the statements of defence of the 1st Defendant only were filed on 12 October, 1998 and later amended and filed on 29 June, 2000. The 2nd Defendant had applied on 12 October, 1998 (in both suits) to have its name struck off the suit as a party improperly joined. It claimed in the supporting affidavits to be “a separate legal entity independent” of the 1st Defendant.

At trial, the Plaintiff called four witnesses and closed their case. The 1st Defendant/Appellant sought and obtained the order of the court to amend their statement of defence. The 1st Defendant called one witness on the day the Court granted the application to amend the statement of defence. The case was thereafter adjourned for continuation.

Meanwhile, the 2nd Defendant/Appellant brought an application for the dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ case against the 2nd Defendant. It claimed that the Plaintiffs’ pleadings and evidence led disclosed no cause of action against 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiffs in turn filed an application titled “Notice of cross motion” seeking to dismiss the 2nd Defendants’ application and also to enter Judgment for the Plaintiff based on Law. The “Notice of cross motion” was not supported by an Affidavit.

The motion for Judgment was moved by the Plaintiffs' counsel to which the Defendant sought an adjournment to reply to the motion for judgment. The case was therefore adjourned. Before the date of adjournment, the 2nd Defendant also sought an extension of time within which to file the statement of defence and to deem the statement of defence already filed as properly filed.

The Plaintiffs’ counsel objected to the motion filed by the 2nd Defendant to extend time within which to file the defence. The Plaintiffs further contended that the motion was not ripe for hearing. The objection was upheld. Counsel to the 2nd Defendant thereafter orally opposed the Plaintiffs’ “Notice of cross motion for Judgment”. The trial Judge dismissed the 2nd Defendants motion for the dismissal of the Plaintiffs’ case and granted the motion for Judgment. Accordingly, Judgment in the sum of about N4.8Million was entered in the Plaintiffs’ favour against the 2nd Defendant.

Dissatisfied, the Defendants/Appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal.

The Defendants/Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.