The plaintiffs brought a claim for declaration of title to land. Both the plaintiffs and Defendants had competing titles and each side relied on original ownership by its predecessors-in-title. The plaintiffs traditional evidence as regards their root of title was substantially self conflicting whereas the defendants' case was estab-lished on oral evidence and previous judgments confirming ownership of sur-rounding lands by their predecessors- in-title. The trial Judge found for the defendants.

The plaintiffs' appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed whereupon the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court raising some issues for the first time. First that the trial Judge was wrong in not finding that the defendants were estopped by a previous judgment and that the sale of the land in dispute to the plaintiffs' prede¬cessor-in-title was made in the vendors personal capacity and not on behalf of the alleged original owners. The plaintiff/appellants also contended that the Court of Appeal was wrong in holding that the principle in Kojo 11 vs. Bonsie did not apply where the conflict in traditional evidence was between the witnesses called by the same party. The appellants also contended that the principle in Onubogu vs. The State did not apply to destroy the evidential value of the testimonies of the plain¬tiffs' witnesses on the traditional history of the ownership of the land.