The Appellants as Plaintiffs had obtained a loan from the Nigerian Building Society by using the title deeds of two of their Directors as collateral. The Respondents as Defendants redeemed the loan facility hitherto granted by the Nigerian Building Society and retained the title deeds formerly in the possession of the Nigerian Building Society as security. The Appellants claim that later they paid their indebtedness to the Respondents and demanded the return of the title deeds of their Directors which were being detained as claimed by the Appellants. From time to time the Appellants demanded the return of the documents from the Respondents as they stated that they had good offers for a loan from the Union Bank and other Financial Institutions. The Appellants said that when it appeared that the Respondents were unable to trace the whereabouts of the documents after what the latter claimed was an extensive search, the Respondents "pleaded" with the Appellants to renew their application with them instead of the Union Bank or any other Financial Institution for that matter. This advice was based on the assertion by the Appellants that they obtained good and reasonable business propositions from some foreign Companies and they needed facility from a Bank to be in a position to engage in those business concerns, but that the failure or refusal of the Respondents to release these documents to them robbed them of the gains or profits they would or might have realized had the proposed transactions succeeded.

The Respondents in rejecting the claim of the Appellants stated that though the documents were missing, and not being detained, but that after fruitless searches, they obtained or procurred the certified copies of those documents which they believed that the Appellants could use for the interim period. But, instead of accepting them, the Appellants refused, and rather asked for the duplicate of the certified true copies. They equally denied advising the Directors of the Appellants to proceed to overseas tour for business transactions, or were aware that the Appellants had applied for a loan facility from the Union Bank and stated that they would have been prepared to give a bond or a guarantee should that have been requested. After the hearing in the High Court, judgment was in the main given to the Appellants although the claim under the head of raw materials was refused. The Respondents being the losing party appealed to the Court of Appeal while the Appellants cross-appealed. The appeal was largely successful.

In its Judgment the Court of Appeal held as follows:

"The amount of N6,000.00 awarded in respect of general damages is allowed to stand, since there was neither an appeal nor cross-appeal against it. But the appeal against the special damages awarded succeeds and is hereby allowed, while the cross-appeal against same fails and is hereby dismissed. For the avoidance of doubt the amount of N1,963,465.50 awarded in favour of Respondents as special damages is hereby set aside, as there was no evidence to support it, while the general damages of N6,000.00 is hereby affirmed."

Piqued no doubt by this turn of events, the Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court