On 31 May, 1994 the plaintiff (now respondent) took out a writ of summons against the United Commercial Bank Limited currently under liquidation by the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (the NDIC - now appellant) for three reliefs. The claim arose from a short term deposit of N5,000.000.00 for 90 days made with the appellant by the respondent on 8 December, 1992. It had been rolled over four times and had finally matured on 6 March, 1994. The interest had been quite attractive at 40% per annum. The respondent at the end of the fourth roll over period demanded repayment of the principal and interest for the last quarter. The appellant failed to meet the demand.

A Statement of claim was also filed on 31 May, 1994. The appellant was said not to have appeared to the writ of summons. By a procedure for obtaining what has been described as a Registry Judgment, it was on 12 July, 1994 adjudged that the plaintiff recover against the said defendant N6,251,863.13 with costs assessed at N547.00 by the registrar with the approval of the Judge (Adeniji J)

The appellant sought by way of motion filled on 8 September, 1994 a stay of execution of the said judgment and to be allowed to pay the debt installmentally. It paid N2,500,000.00 by a bank draft but another cheque for N2,000,000.00 was returned unpaid. The respondent on 5 September, 1994 attached the movable properties of the appellant but the liquidator later got hold of the said properties and kept custody of them. The respondent brought a motion to retrieve the properties.

In the meantime the liquidator having taken control of the United Commercial Bank Limited now got involved in the litigation. It filed an appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the Lagos State High court to entertain the matter by virtue of section 230 (1)(d) of Decree No 107 of 1993 which vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal High Court to entertain certain actions between one bank and another.

The appellant then brought a motion to arrest a ruling about to be delivered by Adeniji J on the motion of the respondent seeking to retrieve the properties of the bank over which the liquidator (appellant) had taken custody to prevent their earlier attachment by the bailiff from being further realised. The learned trial Judge ruled on 14 October, 1994 that the liquidator's motion was incompetent and refused it.

That same day, the learned trial Judge gave a ruling on the motion brought by the respondent and granted it. The appellant also appealed against those rulings of 14th October. An application brought before the learned trial Judge to grant a stay of execution of the orders made in the rulings of 14 October, 1994 was refused by him on 31 January, 1995. But this court on 20 February, 1995 granted a stay of those orders.

When the appeal against the order of the lower court that the appellant produce and deposit with the court bailiff the properties in question came on for hearing on 18 April, 1996 this court demanded to know the status of the so called Registry Judgment because if it did not amount to a judgment constitutionally recognised, the question of this enforceability would be an issue. As that point was being addressed by appellants counsel -Professor Olawoyin- this court decided that the issue ought to be properly raised for consideration. The appellant later, with leave filed two additional grounds of appeal and consequently, a supplementary brief. The respondent also filed a supplementary brief in addition to its amended respondents brief. The appellant thereafter filed an amended appellants reply brief.